<?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>2023 (4) TMI 778 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436752</link>
    <description>The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the order admitting the Section 9 Application filed by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. The appeal by the Suspended Director challenging the admission was dismissed as the debt and default were proven, and no errors were found in the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision. Settlements between the parties were not approved by the Committee of Creditors, rendering them insufficient grounds for interference. The objection regarding the Operational Creditor&#039;s Power of Attorney holder&#039;s competence was considered removed, and claims by Intervenors did not warrant overturning the initial order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 778 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436752</link>
      <description>The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld the order admitting the Section 9 Application filed by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. The appeal by the Suspended Director challenging the admission was dismissed as the debt and default were proven, and no errors were found in the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision. Settlements between the parties were not approved by the Committee of Creditors, rendering them insufficient grounds for interference. The objection regarding the Operational Creditor&#039;s Power of Attorney holder&#039;s competence was considered removed, and claims by Intervenors did not warrant overturning the initial order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>