<?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 (9) TMI 878 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778389</link>
    <description>Debt and default under a Section 7 insolvency application were established through the credit disbursement record, NPA classification, demand and recall notices, the bank&#039;s statement of account, NeSL reporting, and the corporate debtor&#039;s balance confirmation. The objections based on alleged theft of records, discrepancies in the account statement, and claimed receivables were rejected for lack of reliable supporting material. Pendency of a DRT original application and any counterclaim did not bar admission of the insolvency petition, because insolvency is a distinct proceeding available to a financial creditor independently of parallel recovery litigation. The admission of the Section 7 application was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 878 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778389</link>
      <description>Debt and default under a Section 7 insolvency application were established through the credit disbursement record, NPA classification, demand and recall notices, the bank&#039;s statement of account, NeSL reporting, and the corporate debtor&#039;s balance confirmation. The objections based on alleged theft of records, discrepancies in the account statement, and claimed receivables were rejected for lack of reliable supporting material. Pendency of a DRT original application and any counterclaim did not bar admission of the insolvency petition, because insolvency is a distinct proceeding available to a financial creditor independently of parallel recovery litigation. The admission of the Section 7 application was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>