<?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 1278 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425723</link>
    <description>A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application is not maintainable where the record shows a genuine pre-existing dispute, including repeated correspondence about defects in work and unresolved rectification demands before payment. The Tribunal treated this dispute as sufficient to bar admission, noting that insolvency cannot be used as a recovery device for retention money. It also held that maintainability must be tested on the date of filing, so the enhanced default threshold under the 24 March 2020 notification applied; as the alleged default was below the revised one crore rupee limit, the application failed on that ground as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 08:28:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 1278 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425723</link>
      <description>A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application is not maintainable where the record shows a genuine pre-existing dispute, including repeated correspondence about defects in work and unresolved rectification demands before payment. The Tribunal treated this dispute as sufficient to bar admission, noting that insolvency cannot be used as a recovery device for retention money. It also held that maintainability must be tested on the date of filing, so the enhanced default threshold under the 24 March 2020 notification applied; as the alleged default was below the revised one crore rupee limit, the application failed on that ground as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>