<?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 390 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767005</link>
    <description>A Section 7 insolvency request may attract Section 65 where the surrounding circumstances show a fraudulent or malicious filing, including where common directors controlled both entities and the petition appeared aimed at obstructing recovery. The Tribunal also treated the underlying transfers as equity or control-acquisition transactions, not disbursements made against the time value of money, so no financial debt was proved. In the absence of a valid recall notice or reliable evidence of default, admission under Section 7 was not justified. Because the proceeding was found to be maliciously initiated, the penalty under Section 65 was sustained.</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=804985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 390 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767005</link>
      <description>A Section 7 insolvency request may attract Section 65 where the surrounding circumstances show a fraudulent or malicious filing, including where common directors controlled both entities and the petition appeared aimed at obstructing recovery. The Tribunal also treated the underlying transfers as equity or control-acquisition transactions, not disbursements made against the time value of money, so no financial debt was proved. In the absence of a valid recall notice or reliable evidence of default, admission under Section 7 was not justified. Because the proceeding was found to be maliciously initiated, the penalty under Section 65 was sustained.</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=767005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>