<?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 (4) TMI 536 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751355</link>
    <description>An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed after substantial SARFAESI enforcement steps was rejected as fraudulent and malicious. The tribunal noted that the secured creditor had already issued the demand notice, taken measures under the SARFAESI framework, and obtained physical possession of the mortgaged property, while the debtor showed no effective attempt at settlement or restructuring. On that factual matrix, the filing was treated as an to obstruct recovery proceedings and to secure the benefit of moratorium under the Code. The tribunal also observed that the resolution professional&#039;s recommendation was partly biased and went beyond the limited fact-finding role contemplated under the Code.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 536 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751355</link>
      <description>An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed after substantial SARFAESI enforcement steps was rejected as fraudulent and malicious. The tribunal noted that the secured creditor had already issued the demand notice, taken measures under the SARFAESI framework, and obtained physical possession of the mortgaged property, while the debtor showed no effective attempt at settlement or restructuring. On that factual matrix, the filing was treated as an to obstruct recovery proceedings and to secure the benefit of moratorium under the Code. The tribunal also observed that the resolution professional&#039;s recommendation was partly biased and went beyond the limited fact-finding role contemplated under the Code.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>