<?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 1537 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292006</link>
    <description>A financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be the person in whom the debt vests, including by valid legal assignment; on these facts, the assignee alone could proceed, so the petition by the original claimant was not maintainable. Limitation for an insolvency application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and a claim arising from 2009 transactions was held time-barred because Article 62 did not apply. Where the alleged default was based on an arbitral award that had been stayed pending a Section 34 challenge, the debt was not treated as presently enforceable, so default was not established for insolvency admission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:31:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1537 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292006</link>
      <description>A financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be the person in whom the debt vests, including by valid legal assignment; on these facts, the assignee alone could proceed, so the petition by the original claimant was not maintainable. Limitation for an insolvency application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and a claim arising from 2009 transactions was held time-barred because Article 62 did not apply. Where the alleged default was based on an arbitral award that had been stayed pending a Section 34 challenge, the debt was not treated as presently enforceable, so default was not established for insolvency admission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>