<?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 (7) TMI 309 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440036</link>
    <description>A disputed claim arising from an inter se family settlement and related arrangement was held not to be a financial debt, because it did not involve disbursal to the corporate debtor for consideration of the time value of money. The Section 7 insolvency application therefore failed. Entries in the corporate debtor&#039;s balance sheets were also held not to amount to an acknowledgement of liability, since the debtor had contemporaneously disputed the claim and later notes expressly denied it; accordingly, limitation was not extended. The impugned order was sustained on the basis that no enforceable financial debt was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2023 08:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=718959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 309 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440036</link>
      <description>A disputed claim arising from an inter se family settlement and related arrangement was held not to be a financial debt, because it did not involve disbursal to the corporate debtor for consideration of the time value of money. The Section 7 insolvency application therefore failed. Entries in the corporate debtor&#039;s balance sheets were also held not to amount to an acknowledgement of liability, since the debtor had contemporaneously disputed the claim and later notes expressly denied it; accordingly, limitation was not extended. The impugned order was sustained on the basis that no enforceable financial debt was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>