<?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 (8) TMI 66 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425827</link>
    <description>A Section 9 IBC application is not maintainable where a genuine pre-existing dispute, supported by material on record, existed before issuance of the demand notice. Here, the corporate debtor showed that disputes over alleged deficiency in services, non-delivery, delay in drawings, and related counterclaims had already arisen before the demand notice, and the correspondence supported that position. Because the unpaid consultancy invoices related to claims already in dispute, the application could not be used as a debt recovery device. The insolvency petition was therefore rejected at the threshold and CIRP was not admitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2022 09:42:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 66 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425827</link>
      <description>A Section 9 IBC application is not maintainable where a genuine pre-existing dispute, supported by material on record, existed before issuance of the demand notice. Here, the corporate debtor showed that disputes over alleged deficiency in services, non-delivery, delay in drawings, and related counterclaims had already arisen before the demand notice, and the correspondence supported that position. Because the unpaid consultancy invoices related to claims already in dispute, the application could not be used as a debt recovery device. The insolvency petition was therefore rejected at the threshold and CIRP was not admitted.</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=425827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>