<?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>2019 (11) TMI 1521 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291748</link>
    <description>Challenges to claim admission and voting share determination were held premature when brought before the resolution plan was ready for approval, because interference at that stage would disrupt the insolvency resolution process. The tribunal also found that deposit agreements, corporate guarantees, debenture trust deeds, promissory notes, escrow arrangements and recall notices were sufficient to show the corporate debtor&#039;s liability as obligor or co-obligor. On that basis, objections based on absence of privity, no direct borrowing and alleged lack of supporting documents were rejected, and the claimants were treated as financial creditors with validly admitted claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:38:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1521 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291748</link>
      <description>Challenges to claim admission and voting share determination were held premature when brought before the resolution plan was ready for approval, because interference at that stage would disrupt the insolvency resolution process. The tribunal also found that deposit agreements, corporate guarantees, debenture trust deeds, promissory notes, escrow arrangements and recall notices were sufficient to show the corporate debtor&#039;s liability as obligor or co-obligor. On that basis, objections based on absence of privity, no direct borrowing and alleged lack of supporting documents were rejected, and the claimants were treated as financial creditors with validly admitted claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>