<?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 (2) TMI 443 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403951</link>
    <description>Lease-related charges for electricity, diesel, sewerage and water were treated as operational debt where the record showed undisputed supply and reimbursement of services beyond bare rent. On that basis, the majority held that the creditor could maintain a section 9 IBC application, and that a live dispute over the lease arrangement did not defeat admission because the admitted service-related dues were sufficient. The dissent took the view that the claim was essentially for disputed lease rent, that the service charges were not pleaded in the Form 5 claim in a way that removed the dispute, and that a pre-existing dispute required rejection of the insolvency petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:00:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 443 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403951</link>
      <description>Lease-related charges for electricity, diesel, sewerage and water were treated as operational debt where the record showed undisputed supply and reimbursement of services beyond bare rent. On that basis, the majority held that the creditor could maintain a section 9 IBC application, and that a live dispute over the lease arrangement did not defeat admission because the admitted service-related dues were sufficient. The dissent took the view that the claim was essentially for disputed lease rent, that the service charges were not pleaded in the Form 5 claim in a way that removed the dispute, and that a pre-existing dispute required rejection of the insolvency petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>