<?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 (2) TMI 1442 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293463</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision to admit the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed by a sole proprietorship firm, emphasizing the inclusive definition of &quot;person&quot; in the IBC. Despite objections raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding interest inclusion, the default in payment was established, leading to the petition&#039;s admission and declaration of a moratorium. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appeal, dismissing it without costs, as no preexisting dispute was evident, and concerns regarding the Committee of Creditors&#039; role were raised but not deemed substantial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:27:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1442 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293463</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision to admit the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed by a sole proprietorship firm, emphasizing the inclusive definition of &quot;person&quot; in the IBC. Despite objections raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding interest inclusion, the default in payment was established, leading to the petition&#039;s admission and declaration of a moratorium. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appeal, dismissing it without costs, as no preexisting dispute was evident, and concerns regarding the Committee of Creditors&#039; role were raised but not deemed substantial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>