<?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>2021 (1) TMI 312 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402720</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the I&amp;B Code, affirming the validity of a demand notice issued by an Advocate on behalf of an Operational Creditor. It ruled that no Board Resolution was necessary for such authorization, emphasizing judicial consistency. The matter was remitted for further consideration, allowing the Corporate Debtor a chance to settle the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2024 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 312 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402720</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the I&amp;B Code, affirming the validity of a demand notice issued by an Advocate on behalf of an Operational Creditor. It ruled that no Board Resolution was necessary for such authorization, emphasizing judicial consistency. The matter was remitted for further consideration, allowing the Corporate Debtor a chance to settle the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>