<?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 (7) TMI 881 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425326</link>
    <description>A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application was held maintainable where operational debt and default were shown and no genuine pre-existing dispute had been communicated before the demand notice or petition. The operational creditor relied on the memorandum of understanding, invoices, correspondence on monthly charges and property tax, and the statutory demand notice. The corporate debtor&#039;s objections on absence of debt, restricted access, inadequate stamping, termination, and arbitration were not substantiated by evidence. The application was admitted, CIRP was ordered, and the plea of pre-existing dispute was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 881 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425326</link>
      <description>A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application was held maintainable where operational debt and default were shown and no genuine pre-existing dispute had been communicated before the demand notice or petition. The operational creditor relied on the memorandum of understanding, invoices, correspondence on monthly charges and property tax, and the statutory demand notice. The corporate debtor&#039;s objections on absence of debt, restricted access, inadequate stamping, termination, and arbitration were not substantiated by evidence. The application was admitted, CIRP was ordered, and the plea of pre-existing dispute was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>