<?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 1284 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787136</link>
    <description>At the Section 7 admission stage, the inquiry is confined to whether financial debt, default, completeness of the application, and limitation are established. Here, the application was treated as duly authorised, and the debt and default were supported by loan and security documents, an assignment deed, audited balance sheets, and the debtor&#039;s own acknowledgments. The limitation objection failed because the acknowledgments and filing date brought the claim within time. Information utility record absence, stamping defects, lack of a Section 65B certificate, and defective service under Rule 4(3) were treated as directory or curable procedural lapses that did not defeat admission. The insolvency admission order was upheld and the technical objections were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:36:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1284 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787136</link>
      <description>At the Section 7 admission stage, the inquiry is confined to whether financial debt, default, completeness of the application, and limitation are established. Here, the application was treated as duly authorised, and the debt and default were supported by loan and security documents, an assignment deed, audited balance sheets, and the debtor&#039;s own acknowledgments. The limitation objection failed because the acknowledgments and filing date brought the claim within time. Information utility record absence, stamping defects, lack of a Section 65B certificate, and defective service under Rule 4(3) were treated as directory or curable procedural lapses that did not defeat admission. The insolvency admission order was upheld and the technical objections were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>