<?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 735 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449584</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed appellant&#039;s challenge to Resolution Professional&#039;s rejection of claims. Appellant failed to provide adequate documentation despite RP&#039;s repeated requests for proof of services spanning over one year. While appellant submitted composite invoice and random television news snapshots, evidence was skeletal and issued on single day for year-long claimed services. NCLAT held RP acted within discretion seeking additional information and gave reasonable opportunity. No wilful negligence or stone-walling by RP found. Adjudicating Authority correctly concluded claims couldn&#039;t be admitted in CIRP due to insufficient substantiation by appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 05:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 735 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449584</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed appellant&#039;s challenge to Resolution Professional&#039;s rejection of claims. Appellant failed to provide adequate documentation despite RP&#039;s repeated requests for proof of services spanning over one year. While appellant submitted composite invoice and random television news snapshots, evidence was skeletal and issued on single day for year-long claimed services. NCLAT held RP acted within discretion seeking additional information and gave reasonable opportunity. No wilful negligence or stone-walling by RP found. Adjudicating Authority correctly concluded claims couldn&#039;t be admitted in CIRP due to insufficient substantiation by appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>