<?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 (3) TMI 1323 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788568</link>
    <description>A section 9 insolvency application is barred only by a genuine, pre-existing dispute that relates to the same operational debt; a dispute arising from a different contract or transaction does not defeat the claim. The text also states that the Insolvency Code applies to proprietorship concerns, so a proprietorship can maintain such proceedings. It further notes that a section 8 demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate or legal representative. On that basis, objections based on the separate franchise arrangement, the creditor&#039;s proprietary form, and the use of an advocate for notice were treated as untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1323 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788568</link>
      <description>A section 9 insolvency application is barred only by a genuine, pre-existing dispute that relates to the same operational debt; a dispute arising from a different contract or transaction does not defeat the claim. The text also states that the Insolvency Code applies to proprietorship concerns, so a proprietorship can maintain such proceedings. It further notes that a section 8 demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate or legal representative. On that basis, objections based on the separate franchise arrangement, the creditor&#039;s proprietary form, and the use of an advocate for notice were treated as untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>