<?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 (5) TMI 166 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769894</link>
    <description>A composite assignment deed was held severable, so the Tamil Nadu place-of-registration defect invalidated it only to the extent it created an interest over the Coimbatore immovable property and did not nullify the entire transaction. The Section 7 application was treated as within limitation because the corporate debtor&#039;s later balance sheets acknowledged the debt, and such acknowledgment extended limitation even though the assignee was not separately named. Deposit of the principal amount under an interim order did not discharge the financial debt, as the deposit covered only part of the outstanding liability and did not extinguish default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2025 08:34:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 166 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769894</link>
      <description>A composite assignment deed was held severable, so the Tamil Nadu place-of-registration defect invalidated it only to the extent it created an interest over the Coimbatore immovable property and did not nullify the entire transaction. The Section 7 application was treated as within limitation because the corporate debtor&#039;s later balance sheets acknowledged the debt, and such acknowledgment extended limitation even though the assignee was not separately named. Deposit of the principal amount under an interim order did not discharge the financial debt, as the deposit covered only part of the outstanding liability and did not extinguish default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>