<?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 953 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764889</link>
    <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal challenging admission of a Section 7 application by a financial creditor against a corporate debtor. The corporate debtor argued that pledged shares were sufficient to cover the debt, but the tribunal found that after sale of pledged shares, Rs.2,05,54,296 remained due. The debtor&#039;s attempts to settle dues before both the adjudicating authority and tribunal confirmed existence of debt and default. The tribunal held that the financial creditor had sole discretion to invoke pledged shares under the MoU, and the realized amount from share sales did not discharge the debt, justifying initiation of CIRP proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 953 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764889</link>
      <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal challenging admission of a Section 7 application by a financial creditor against a corporate debtor. The corporate debtor argued that pledged shares were sufficient to cover the debt, but the tribunal found that after sale of pledged shares, Rs.2,05,54,296 remained due. The debtor&#039;s attempts to settle dues before both the adjudicating authority and tribunal confirmed existence of debt and default. The tribunal held that the financial creditor had sole discretion to invoke pledged shares under the MoU, and the realized amount from share sales did not discharge the debt, justifying initiation of CIRP proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>