<?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 (8) TMI 945 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411367</link>
    <description>An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be filed within limitation, and unverified account entries alone do not establish liability for admission. The demand notice was issued in 2019, while default was shown as occurring in 2016, and the operational creditor relied on an unverified statement of account and invoices from 2015-2016. The tribunal treated mere book entries as insufficient under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that the petition could not be admitted simply because the corporate debtor did not file a reply. The petition was rejected as barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:14:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 945 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411367</link>
      <description>An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be filed within limitation, and unverified account entries alone do not establish liability for admission. The demand notice was issued in 2019, while default was shown as occurring in 2016, and the operational creditor relied on an unverified statement of account and invoices from 2015-2016. The tribunal treated mere book entries as insufficient under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that the petition could not be admitted simply because the corporate debtor did not file a reply. The petition was rejected as barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>