<?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>Financial Creditor&#039;s Project Monitoring Role Does Not Absolve Corporate Debtor From Payment Under IBC Section 7</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85728</link>
    <description>NCLAT upheld the admission of Section 7 application under IBC, confirming the existence of financial debt and default by corporate debtor. The tribunal rejected appellant&#039;s contention that Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) controlled by financial creditor was responsible for default. NCLAT emphasized that PMC&#039;s constitution to monitor project execution did not diminish corporate debtor&#039;s payment obligations. Following precedents in E.S. Krishnamurthy and Innoventive Industries, NCLAT confirmed Adjudicating Authority&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to determining debt existence and default occurrence. The appeal was dismissed as corporate debtor failed to honor repayment obligations despite acknowledging debt multiple times, satisfying Section 7 requirements for CIRP initiation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:26:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:26:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Financial Creditor&#039;s Project Monitoring Role Does Not Absolve Corporate Debtor From Payment Under IBC Section 7</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85728</link>
      <description>NCLAT upheld the admission of Section 7 application under IBC, confirming the existence of financial debt and default by corporate debtor. The tribunal rejected appellant&#039;s contention that Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) controlled by financial creditor was responsible for default. NCLAT emphasized that PMC&#039;s constitution to monitor project execution did not diminish corporate debtor&#039;s payment obligations. Following precedents in E.S. Krishnamurthy and Innoventive Industries, NCLAT confirmed Adjudicating Authority&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to determining debt existence and default occurrence. The appeal was dismissed as corporate debtor failed to honor repayment obligations despite acknowledging debt multiple times, satisfying Section 7 requirements for CIRP initiation.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:26:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>