<?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 (9) TMI 1607 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759363</link>
    <description>A section 7 insolvency application was treated as maintainable because the corporate debtor was shown to be a co-borrower under the loan agreement, with signatures on every page and later part-payments confirming a subsisting financial liability. Default was held to have occurred on 05.07.2021, outside the section 10A suspension period, and could be proved through the loan documents, disbursement proof, SARFAESI notice and repayment schedule even without an information utility record. Objections based on stamping, quantification discrepancies and alleged lack of authorisation were rejected, and the requirements for admission were found satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:45:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1607 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759363</link>
      <description>A section 7 insolvency application was treated as maintainable because the corporate debtor was shown to be a co-borrower under the loan agreement, with signatures on every page and later part-payments confirming a subsisting financial liability. Default was held to have occurred on 05.07.2021, outside the section 10A suspension period, and could be proved through the loan documents, disbursement proof, SARFAESI notice and repayment schedule even without an information utility record. Objections based on stamping, quantification discrepancies and alleged lack of authorisation were rejected, and the requirements for admission were found satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>