<?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 965 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399991</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Financial Creditor was entitled to seek restoration of the disposed company petition, and the Adjudicating Authority had the power to restore the petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLT Rules. The decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions and precedents, allowing the revival of the petition for further adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2020 18:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 965 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399991</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Financial Creditor was entitled to seek restoration of the disposed company petition, and the Adjudicating Authority had the power to restore the petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLT Rules. The decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions and precedents, allowing the revival of the petition for further adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>