<?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 (9) TMI 171 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427226</link>
    <description>Lease rental and allied charges for commercial use of premises were treated as operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because the claim arose from contractual use and occupation for business purposes; defects in registration or stamping did not change that character. Admission under section 9 nevertheless failed because emails, letters and a pre-demand legal notice showed a real pre-existing dispute over non-maintenance, non-repair and withholding of maintenance charges. Applying the settled standard, the Tribunal found the dispute genuine rather than spurious or illusory, so the insolvency petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2022 20:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 171 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427226</link>
      <description>Lease rental and allied charges for commercial use of premises were treated as operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because the claim arose from contractual use and occupation for business purposes; defects in registration or stamping did not change that character. Admission under section 9 nevertheless failed because emails, letters and a pre-demand legal notice showed a real pre-existing dispute over non-maintenance, non-repair and withholding of maintenance charges. Applying the settled standard, the Tribunal found the dispute genuine rather than spurious or illusory, so the insolvency petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>