<?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 (12) TMI 1557 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784017</link>
    <description>A del credere agent who, under the commercial arrangement, bore responsibility for collection, buyer default and remittance of sale proceeds was treated as the person to whom the operational debt was owed, so the agent could maintain a Section 9 insolvency application. Objections based on invoices standing in the supplier&#039;s name, missing GST documentation in the agent&#039;s name, and express authority to sue on behalf of the principal did not override the contractual and commercial reality of the tripartite arrangement. On the contempt issue, the resolution professional&#039;s conduct during CIRP was found to be consistent with the evolving tribunal directions and not shown to be wilful disobedience, so no contempt was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 12:11:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1557 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784017</link>
      <description>A del credere agent who, under the commercial arrangement, bore responsibility for collection, buyer default and remittance of sale proceeds was treated as the person to whom the operational debt was owed, so the agent could maintain a Section 9 insolvency application. Objections based on invoices standing in the supplier&#039;s name, missing GST documentation in the agent&#039;s name, and express authority to sue on behalf of the principal did not override the contractual and commercial reality of the tripartite arrangement. On the contempt issue, the resolution professional&#039;s conduct during CIRP was found to be consistent with the evolving tribunal directions and not shown to be wilful disobedience, so no contempt was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>