<?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 (10) TMI 493 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399519</link>
    <description>A section 9 IBC petition was found not maintainable where the corporate debtor showed that part of the invoice demand had already been paid and the rental claim was not supported by the parties&#039; statements as an outstanding liability. Prior e-mails sent before the demand notice repeatedly raised complaints about crane failures, wire rope issues, trolley roller defects, safety concerns and other quality problems. Those communications established a genuine pre-existing dispute on the existence of the debt and the quality of goods, bringing the matter within section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was therefore liable to be rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:46:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 493 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399519</link>
      <description>A section 9 IBC petition was found not maintainable where the corporate debtor showed that part of the invoice demand had already been paid and the rental claim was not supported by the parties&#039; statements as an outstanding liability. Prior e-mails sent before the demand notice repeatedly raised complaints about crane failures, wire rope issues, trolley roller defects, safety concerns and other quality problems. Those communications established a genuine pre-existing dispute on the existence of the debt and the quality of goods, bringing the matter within section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was therefore liable to be rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>