<?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 (3) TMI 235 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AMARAVATI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419197</link>
    <description>The tribunal found that the Form-D was filed within the required timeframe, the Applicant had locus standi to file the application, Regulation 21-A was not applicable, the joint consortium agreement was irrelevant, and the permission given by the Liquidator did not require interference. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of I.A. No. 54/2020.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2022 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 235 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AMARAVATI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419197</link>
      <description>The tribunal found that the Form-D was filed within the required timeframe, the Applicant had locus standi to file the application, Regulation 21-A was not applicable, the joint consortium agreement was irrelevant, and the permission given by the Liquidator did not require interference. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of I.A. No. 54/2020.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>