<?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 (2) TMI 961 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766414</link>
    <description>The NCLAT set aside a tribunal order regarding a Section 9 IBC application involving Rs. 6,13,48,161.98, comprising Rs. 4,97,22,461.16 principal and Rs. 1,16,25,700.82 interest. The appellate tribunal held that interest claims based solely on invoice provisions without formal agreement are unenforceable under IBC. The invoice clause stating &quot;interest will be charged @ 12% or as per agreed terms&quot; was deemed vague and unenforceable as no agreed terms existed. The tribunal distinguished the case from Prashat Agarwal, noting the invoice lacked specific payment periods and contractual basis for interest claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=801349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 961 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766414</link>
      <description>The NCLAT set aside a tribunal order regarding a Section 9 IBC application involving Rs. 6,13,48,161.98, comprising Rs. 4,97,22,461.16 principal and Rs. 1,16,25,700.82 interest. The appellate tribunal held that interest claims based solely on invoice provisions without formal agreement are unenforceable under IBC. The invoice clause stating &quot;interest will be charged @ 12% or as per agreed terms&quot; was deemed vague and unenforceable as no agreed terms existed. The tribunal distinguished the case from Prashat Agarwal, noting the invoice lacked specific payment periods and contractual basis for interest claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>