<?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>2019 (9) TMI 1665 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303949</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Petition filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment, amounting to Rs.1,68,76,753/- along with interest, due to being time-barred. Despite objections raised by the Corporate Debtor on the claim&#039;s limitation and quality of goods supplied, the Tribunal found in favor of the Corporate Debtor, citing a Debit Note raised on 31.3.2016 as the basis for the time-barred decision. The technical objection regarding the authorization of the Authorized Representative was deemed lacking in merit, resulting in the dismissal of the Petition without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:15:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1665 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303949</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Petition filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment, amounting to Rs.1,68,76,753/- along with interest, due to being time-barred. Despite objections raised by the Corporate Debtor on the claim&#039;s limitation and quality of goods supplied, the Tribunal found in favor of the Corporate Debtor, citing a Debit Note raised on 31.3.2016 as the basis for the time-barred decision. The technical objection regarding the authorization of the Authorized Representative was deemed lacking in merit, resulting in the dismissal of the Petition without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>