<?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 1424 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL: CHANDIGARH BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457133</link>
    <description>Non-compliance with the tribunal&#039;s direction to file the affidavit of compliance under Section 94(4) and (5) of the Code, together with a valid affidavit of authorization for the proposed resolution professional, led to dismissal of the petition. The later-filed affidavit was not taken on record because it was submitted after repeated non-appearance and after expiry of the time granted for compliance, and the mandatory AFA remained unfiled. The tribunal also noted alleged misuse of the interim moratorium under the SARFAESI Act but, despite finding abuse of process, declined to impose costs on counsel and dismissed the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2024 20:53:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1424 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL: CHANDIGARH BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457133</link>
      <description>Non-compliance with the tribunal&#039;s direction to file the affidavit of compliance under Section 94(4) and (5) of the Code, together with a valid affidavit of authorization for the proposed resolution professional, led to dismissal of the petition. The later-filed affidavit was not taken on record because it was submitted after repeated non-appearance and after expiry of the time granted for compliance, and the mandatory AFA remained unfiled. The tribunal also noted alleged misuse of the interim moratorium under the SARFAESI Act but, despite finding abuse of process, declined to impose costs on counsel and dismissed the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>