<?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 (5) TMI 943 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408064</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled that the Resolution Professional&#039;s rejection of the claim, based on its disputed nature and pending arbitration, was not in line with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and legal precedents. The RP should have admitted the claim as contingent in the information memorandum. The tribunal allowed the claim partially, condoning the delay in submission and ensuring its consideration in the resolution process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2021 08:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 943 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408064</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled that the Resolution Professional&#039;s rejection of the claim, based on its disputed nature and pending arbitration, was not in line with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and legal precedents. The RP should have admitted the claim as contingent in the information memorandum. The tribunal allowed the claim partially, condoning the delay in submission and ensuring its consideration in the resolution process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>