<?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 (7) TMI 117 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754897</link>
    <description>For an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the filing date is the date of e-filing or presentation before the Registry, not the later date when the Registry registers and numbers it. The Tribunal treated numbering as a ministerial act and applied the procedural framework to hold that legal consequences, including the interim moratorium under Section 96, commence from filing. A complete application by one creditor was sufficient to trigger that moratorium, and a later registration of another creditor&#039;s application did not alter the earlier filing date. The contrary Kerala High Court view was not followed because it did not consider the Tribunal&#039;s earlier binding ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 117 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754897</link>
      <description>For an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the filing date is the date of e-filing or presentation before the Registry, not the later date when the Registry registers and numbers it. The Tribunal treated numbering as a ministerial act and applied the procedural framework to hold that legal consequences, including the interim moratorium under Section 96, commence from filing. A complete application by one creditor was sufficient to trigger that moratorium, and a later registration of another creditor&#039;s application did not alter the earlier filing date. The contrary Kerala High Court view was not followed because it did not consider the Tribunal&#039;s earlier binding ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>