<?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 972 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449821</link>
    <description>For admission of an operational creditor&#039;s Section 9 insolvency application, the dispute must be real, pre-existing and supported by material before the demand notice; mere denials or later objections are insufficient. The tribunal found no substantial pre-notice dispute, as the communications mainly concerned mobilisation, progress and payment issues, without timely quality or quantity objections. It also held that arbitration commenced after the demand notice, and the later challenge to the arbitral award, did not bar admission because the claim was based on unpaid invoices, not award enforcement. An unqualified work completion certificate issued before the demand notice was relied on as evidence of satisfactory completion and absence of timely defects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 972 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449821</link>
      <description>For admission of an operational creditor&#039;s Section 9 insolvency application, the dispute must be real, pre-existing and supported by material before the demand notice; mere denials or later objections are insufficient. The tribunal found no substantial pre-notice dispute, as the communications mainly concerned mobilisation, progress and payment issues, without timely quality or quantity objections. It also held that arbitration commenced after the demand notice, and the later challenge to the arbitral award, did not bar admission because the claim was based on unpaid invoices, not award enforcement. An unqualified work completion certificate issued before the demand notice was relied on as evidence of satisfactory completion and absence of timely defects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>