<?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>CIRP Application Rejected: Meeting Minutes Don&#039;t Prove Financial Debt; Arbitration Clause in Contract Overrules IBC Proceedings.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=64870</link>
    <description>Rejection of application for initiation of CIRP - The mere fact that the Corporate Debtor has admitted liability to make payment in its minutes of meeting does not change the character of the transaction into a financial debt. In Clause 18 of the contract contains arbitration clause, for settling amicably by mutual consultation and thereafter approaching the arbitration as per Arbitration &amp; Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant ought to have taken recourse to Clause 18 of the Sub-Contract Agreement dated 07.03.2017 and these issues could not have been decided in IBC proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that it was not financial debt and rejected Section 7 Application. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:35:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CIRP Application Rejected: Meeting Minutes Don&#039;t Prove Financial Debt; Arbitration Clause in Contract Overrules IBC Proceedings.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=64870</link>
      <description>Rejection of application for initiation of CIRP - The mere fact that the Corporate Debtor has admitted liability to make payment in its minutes of meeting does not change the character of the transaction into a financial debt. In Clause 18 of the contract contains arbitration clause, for settling amicably by mutual consultation and thereafter approaching the arbitration as per Arbitration &amp; Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant ought to have taken recourse to Clause 18 of the Sub-Contract Agreement dated 07.03.2017 and these issues could not have been decided in IBC proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that it was not financial debt and rejected Section 7 Application. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=64870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>