<?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>2022 (1) TMI 458 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416993</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the company petition seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor under section 9 of the Insolvency &amp;amp; Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal ruled that the claim by the Operational Creditor, a retired partner in a partnership firm, did not meet the definition of an &quot;Operational Creditor&quot; under the IBC. It held that the IBC does not protect a partner&#039;s claim against another partner or the firm, citing a NCLAT judgment. Therefore, the petition was deemed not maintainable, and the application under section 9 of the Code was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:59:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 458 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416993</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the company petition seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor under section 9 of the Insolvency &amp;amp; Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal ruled that the claim by the Operational Creditor, a retired partner in a partnership firm, did not meet the definition of an &quot;Operational Creditor&quot; under the IBC. It held that the IBC does not protect a partner&#039;s claim against another partner or the firm, citing a NCLAT judgment. Therefore, the petition was deemed not maintainable, and the application under section 9 of the Code was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>