<?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 (9) TMI 1538 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295196</link>
    <description>An unregistered sale agreement concerning immovable property was treated as admissible for collateral purposes under the Registration Act, 1908, where it was supported by a contemporaneous acknowledgement letter signed by authorised company officers and bearing the corporate seal. The documents were sufficient to prove payment and acknowledgement of liability, even though the transaction was not reflected in the corporate debtor&#039;s books of account. The absence of a board resolution and the omission from the accounts were not decisive on the facts, particularly where the company&#039;s contrary case was unsupported by reliable evidence and the resolution professional could not reject the claim on merits. The claim was therefore admissible as a financial debt and the rejection letters were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 May 2021 08:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1538 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295196</link>
      <description>An unregistered sale agreement concerning immovable property was treated as admissible for collateral purposes under the Registration Act, 1908, where it was supported by a contemporaneous acknowledgement letter signed by authorised company officers and bearing the corporate seal. The documents were sufficient to prove payment and acknowledgement of liability, even though the transaction was not reflected in the corporate debtor&#039;s books of account. The absence of a board resolution and the omission from the accounts were not decisive on the facts, particularly where the company&#039;s contrary case was unsupported by reliable evidence and the resolution professional could not reject the claim on merits. The claim was therefore admissible as a financial debt and the rejection letters were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>