<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1941 - National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301144</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s supervisory jurisdiction extends to testing whether a Resolution Professional&#039;s assessment, exclusion, or reduction of a creditor&#039;s claim under the insolvency resolution regulations is justified on the materials available, and the admitted amount may be reviewed accordingly. The invoices here contained a delayed-payment interest clause, and in the absence of any express contractual bar, rejection of the interest component was found arbitrary and the claim was accepted. The inventory carrying cost claim was not finally rejected merely for lack of a specific contractual clause; it required re-examination against the accounts and supporting evidence. The Resolution Professional&#039;s remaining adjustments were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2022 08:24:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1941 - National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301144</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s supervisory jurisdiction extends to testing whether a Resolution Professional&#039;s assessment, exclusion, or reduction of a creditor&#039;s claim under the insolvency resolution regulations is justified on the materials available, and the admitted amount may be reviewed accordingly. The invoices here contained a delayed-payment interest clause, and in the absence of any express contractual bar, rejection of the interest component was found arbitrary and the claim was accepted. The inventory carrying cost claim was not finally rejected merely for lack of a specific contractual clause; it required re-examination against the accounts and supporting evidence. The Resolution Professional&#039;s remaining adjustments were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>