<?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>2024 (2) TMI 621 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449470</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous emails and other communications showing delay in delivery, poor software quality, and non-completion of milestones established a real pre-existing dispute before the demand notice, so the section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could not be admitted. The tribunal also treated the respondent&#039;s prior indemnity notice and pre-institution mediation as corroborative of a dispute existing before initiation of insolvency proceedings. A further part of the debt was affected by the section 10A bar. The dismissal of the operational creditor&#039;s application was upheld because contemporaneous material is sufficient to bar admission even if the creditor disputes the existence of that dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 621 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449470</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous emails and other communications showing delay in delivery, poor software quality, and non-completion of milestones established a real pre-existing dispute before the demand notice, so the section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could not be admitted. The tribunal also treated the respondent&#039;s prior indemnity notice and pre-institution mediation as corroborative of a dispute existing before initiation of insolvency proceedings. A further part of the debt was affected by the section 10A bar. The dismissal of the operational creditor&#039;s application was upheld because contemporaneous material is sufficient to bar admission even if the creditor disputes the existence of that dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>