<?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 1283 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425728</link>
    <description>A sub-contract claim for project execution and payment from project receipts did not amount to a financial debt because there was no disbursement against the time value of money, so a Section 7 insolvency petition could not be maintained. An admission of liability in meeting minutes did not change the character of the underlying contractual arrangement, and the presence of an arbitration clause supported the view that the dispute was contractual rather than insolvency-based. Pronouncement of the order under Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules was also treated as valid because the matter had already been heard and the Technical Member had agreed with the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 1283 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425728</link>
      <description>A sub-contract claim for project execution and payment from project receipts did not amount to a financial debt because there was no disbursement against the time value of money, so a Section 7 insolvency petition could not be maintained. An admission of liability in meeting minutes did not change the character of the underlying contractual arrangement, and the presence of an arbitration clause supported the view that the dispute was contractual rather than insolvency-based. Pronouncement of the order under Rule 151 of the NCLT Rules was also treated as valid because the matter had already been heard and the Technical Member had agreed with the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>