<?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>2026 (2) TMI 134 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785939</link>
    <description>Repeated acknowledgments of borrowing, restructuring steps, recall notices and default authentication were treated as sufficient to establish financial debt and default for admission of the Section 7 insolvency application, without requiring determination of the exact default quantum at that stage. The corporate debtor&#039;s objections based on an unapproved OTS, allegations of malicious initiation, and later settlement offers were rejected because the OTS was contingent on unanimous lender approval and never became a binding settlement, while later attempts to settle did not erase the admitted default. Once the CoC was constituted, any fresh settlement had to proceed through the statutory withdrawal route under Section 12A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 08:38:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=883728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 134 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785939</link>
      <description>Repeated acknowledgments of borrowing, restructuring steps, recall notices and default authentication were treated as sufficient to establish financial debt and default for admission of the Section 7 insolvency application, without requiring determination of the exact default quantum at that stage. The corporate debtor&#039;s objections based on an unapproved OTS, allegations of malicious initiation, and later settlement offers were rejected because the OTS was contingent on unanimous lender approval and never became a binding settlement, while later attempts to settle did not erase the admitted default. Once the CoC was constituted, any fresh settlement had to proceed through the statutory withdrawal route under Section 12A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>