<?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 (3) TMI 391 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767006</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency application is not maintainable where a genuine pre-existing dispute exists before the statutory demand notice. The record showed that objections to the invoices, fee claims, billing methodology, applied fee structure, and supporting documents were raised by the corporate debtor in its reply and later communications before notice was issued. Those objections were treated as a real and substantial dispute, not a feeble or illusory defence. The revised demand notice and subsequent writ proceedings did not remove the earlier dispute, so the petition had to be rejected at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:32:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 391 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767006</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency application is not maintainable where a genuine pre-existing dispute exists before the statutory demand notice. The record showed that objections to the invoices, fee claims, billing methodology, applied fee structure, and supporting documents were raised by the corporate debtor in its reply and later communications before notice was issued. Those objections were treated as a real and substantial dispute, not a feeble or illusory defence. The revised demand notice and subsequent writ proceedings did not remove the earlier dispute, so the petition had to be rejected at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>