<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1578 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462811</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of Section 7 IBC petition. The Adjudicating Authority correctly found the petition non-maintainable on two grounds: absence of board resolution authorizing petition filing and lack of board resolution for loan advancement under Section 186 of Companies Act, 2013. The appellant argued derivative action doctrine applied due to deadlock in financial creditor company, but NCLAT held this doctrine inapplicable to Section 7 IBC petitions as Central Government notification specifically prescribes authorized persons who may file such applications. The appellant&#039;s contention that corporate debtor&#039;s balance sheet acknowledgment of debt eliminated need for Section 186 resolution was rejected as unconvincing. NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s findings that proper board authorization was mandatory for both petition filing and loan advancement, making the petition fundamentally defective and non-maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 18:58:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1578 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462811</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of Section 7 IBC petition. The Adjudicating Authority correctly found the petition non-maintainable on two grounds: absence of board resolution authorizing petition filing and lack of board resolution for loan advancement under Section 186 of Companies Act, 2013. The appellant argued derivative action doctrine applied due to deadlock in financial creditor company, but NCLAT held this doctrine inapplicable to Section 7 IBC petitions as Central Government notification specifically prescribes authorized persons who may file such applications. The appellant&#039;s contention that corporate debtor&#039;s balance sheet acknowledgment of debt eliminated need for Section 186 resolution was rejected as unconvincing. NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s findings that proper board authorization was mandatory for both petition filing and loan advancement, making the petition fundamentally defective and non-maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>