<?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 (11) TMI 793 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415012</link>
    <description>The National Company Law Tribunal&#039;s contempt power under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 was read purposively to extend to proceedings where the Tribunal acts as adjudicating authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The reasoning linked Section 425 with Section 424, the Tribunal Rules and Article 323B, and rejected a narrow view that would confine contempt jurisdiction to matters under the Companies Act alone. On that basis, the dismissal of the contempt application for want of jurisdiction was held unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the contempt application was restored for consideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 793 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415012</link>
      <description>The National Company Law Tribunal&#039;s contempt power under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 was read purposively to extend to proceedings where the Tribunal acts as adjudicating authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The reasoning linked Section 425 with Section 424, the Tribunal Rules and Article 323B, and rejected a narrow view that would confine contempt jurisdiction to matters under the Companies Act alone. On that basis, the dismissal of the contempt application for want of jurisdiction was held unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the contempt application was restored for consideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>