<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1867 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299067</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the claim by the operational creditor was deemed time-barred. The claim, arising from supplies made in 2011-12, was filed in 2017, exceeding the three-year limitation period. Despite the operational creditor&#039;s arguments on continuous transactions and follow-up actions, the Tribunal held that the lack of subsequent invoices after 2011 indicated discontinuity. Additionally, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of acknowledgment of debt in the respondent company&#039;s financial statements, leading to the rejection of the claim as unenforceable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:59:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1867 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299067</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the claim by the operational creditor was deemed time-barred. The claim, arising from supplies made in 2011-12, was filed in 2017, exceeding the three-year limitation period. Despite the operational creditor&#039;s arguments on continuous transactions and follow-up actions, the Tribunal held that the lack of subsequent invoices after 2011 indicated discontinuity. Additionally, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of acknowledgment of debt in the respondent company&#039;s financial statements, leading to the rejection of the claim as unenforceable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>