<?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 918 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399944</link>
    <description>An insolvency petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may be admitted where default is shown and no genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice. The Tribunal found the alleged quality dispute unsupported by the material on record, treated the demand notice and application amount as the same, and held that part-payment and the running account did not undermine the debt claim. It also ruled that additional evidence in appeal is admissible only on substantial cause or necessity to pronounce judgment, so documents already within the appellant&#039;s knowledge or not binding on the operational creditor were largely refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:14:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 918 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399944</link>
      <description>An insolvency petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may be admitted where default is shown and no genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice. The Tribunal found the alleged quality dispute unsupported by the material on record, treated the demand notice and application amount as the same, and held that part-payment and the running account did not undermine the debt claim. It also ruled that additional evidence in appeal is admissible only on substantial cause or necessity to pronounce judgment, so documents already within the appellant&#039;s knowledge or not binding on the operational creditor were largely refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>