<?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 (8) TMI 1352 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777164</link>
    <description>A genuine and pre-existing dispute over the quality of coal supplied barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application. The purchase order allowed inspection, testing, and rejection if the coal fell below the stipulated calorific value, and the record showed prompt rejection on laboratory test results, immediate objection after supply, and continuing correspondence and meeting minutes showing disagreement before the demand notice. Divergent joint sampling and third-party test results, together with pending arbitration on the same transaction, confirmed that the controversy was contractual and technical rather than a manufactured defence. The Tribunal therefore held the application not maintainable because insolvency jurisdiction cannot be used to recover a disputed operational debt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1352 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777164</link>
      <description>A genuine and pre-existing dispute over the quality of coal supplied barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application. The purchase order allowed inspection, testing, and rejection if the coal fell below the stipulated calorific value, and the record showed prompt rejection on laboratory test results, immediate objection after supply, and continuing correspondence and meeting minutes showing disagreement before the demand notice. Divergent joint sampling and third-party test results, together with pending arbitration on the same transaction, confirmed that the controversy was contractual and technical rather than a manufactured defence. The Tribunal therefore held the application not maintainable because insolvency jurisdiction cannot be used to recover a disputed operational debt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>