<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (9) TMI 843 - NATIONAL COM PANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398724</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Company Appeal challenging the order admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It held that the application was maintainable despite a winding-up petition against the Corporate Debtor being admitted by the Bombay High Court. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the &#039;Forech India Ltd.&#039; case, emphasizing the independence of the Section 7 application. Various rectification requests were addressed, and the scope of Rule 11&#039;s inherent powers was discussed, highlighting limitations on revisiting factual findings. The Tribunal focused on ensuring justice without revisiting factual determinations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 843 - NATIONAL COM PANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398724</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Company Appeal challenging the order admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It held that the application was maintainable despite a winding-up petition against the Corporate Debtor being admitted by the Bombay High Court. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the &#039;Forech India Ltd.&#039; case, emphasizing the independence of the Section 7 application. Various rectification requests were addressed, and the scope of Rule 11&#039;s inherent powers was discussed, highlighting limitations on revisiting factual findings. The Tribunal focused on ensuring justice without revisiting factual determinations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>