<?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 (12) TMI 244 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415478</link>
    <description>Debenture holders, as financial creditors, may maintain a Section 7 insolvency application in their own right where the debt and default are established; the trust deed did not remove that entitlement. A later change in creditor nomenclature or amendment to the cause title does not vitiate the proceeding absent shown prejudice to the corporate debtor. The admission of CIRP was also not invalidated on natural justice grounds, because the debtor had admitted default and the Adjudicating Authority only had to verify debt and default for admission. The project-specific insolvency argument was held inapplicable on the facts, and the admission order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2021 09:18:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 244 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415478</link>
      <description>Debenture holders, as financial creditors, may maintain a Section 7 insolvency application in their own right where the debt and default are established; the trust deed did not remove that entitlement. A later change in creditor nomenclature or amendment to the cause title does not vitiate the proceeding absent shown prejudice to the corporate debtor. The admission of CIRP was also not invalidated on natural justice grounds, because the debtor had admitted default and the Adjudicating Authority only had to verify debt and default for admission. The project-specific insolvency argument was held inapplicable on the facts, and the admission order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>