<?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>2025 (1) TMI 264 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764202</link>
    <description>In insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor, the admission order was upheld because the resolution professional&#039;s report contained an independent statutory assessment of default and the guarantor failed to produce evidence of repayment as required under Section 99(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The earlier observation made at the stage of appointing the resolution professional did not displace the later recommendation, since the report itself supported the finding of default. Partial recovery by the creditor did not negate the subsisting unpaid claim. The challenge based on alleged non-application of mind therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2025 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=786610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 264 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764202</link>
      <description>In insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor, the admission order was upheld because the resolution professional&#039;s report contained an independent statutory assessment of default and the guarantor failed to produce evidence of repayment as required under Section 99(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The earlier observation made at the stage of appointing the resolution professional did not displace the later recommendation, since the report itself supported the finding of default. Partial recovery by the creditor did not negate the subsisting unpaid claim. The challenge based on alleged non-application of mind therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>