<?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 (7) TMI 552 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409710</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that an application connected with the corporate insolvency resolution process and the corporate debtor&#039;s continuance as a going concern was maintainable under its wide jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It refused to waive interest or reduce contractual rates, holding that the parties were bound by the sanction letters and loan documents and that the Tribunal could not rewrite the bargain during the loan period. It further directed fair consideration of the request for ad hoc security and related financing, holding that the no-objection request could not be declined merely because CIRP was pending and that going-concern preservation required transparent assessment in consultation with the CoC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 552 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409710</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that an application connected with the corporate insolvency resolution process and the corporate debtor&#039;s continuance as a going concern was maintainable under its wide jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It refused to waive interest or reduce contractual rates, holding that the parties were bound by the sanction letters and loan documents and that the Tribunal could not rewrite the bargain during the loan period. It further directed fair consideration of the request for ad hoc security and related financing, holding that the no-objection request could not be declined merely because CIRP was pending and that going-concern preservation required transparent assessment in consultation with the CoC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>