<?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 1522 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291749</link>
    <description>Advances made under a memorandum of understanding for transfer of a complete affordable housing project did not constitute financial debt because they were part of the sale consideration, not a disbursal for the time value of money. The NCLT noted that no interest was provided and that the transaction was not one in which money was raised for temporary use or infused as stakeholder support to keep the corporate debtor running. As the arrangement lacked the commercial effect of borrowing, the applicant was not a financial creditor and the claim did not fall within Section 5(7) or Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Section 7 insolvency application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 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=628413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1522 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHANDIGARH BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291749</link>
      <description>Advances made under a memorandum of understanding for transfer of a complete affordable housing project did not constitute financial debt because they were part of the sale consideration, not a disbursal for the time value of money. The NCLT noted that no interest was provided and that the transaction was not one in which money was raised for temporary use or infused as stakeholder support to keep the corporate debtor running. As the arrangement lacked the commercial effect of borrowing, the applicant was not a financial creditor and the claim did not fall within Section 5(7) or Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Section 7 insolvency application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>