<?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 1455 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788700</link>
    <description>A corporate debtor had deposited the amount within the time allowed, and an affidavit stated that the amount should not be released to the operational creditor while sanctions-related constraints continued. That statement did not justify undoing the deposit or directing its return, especially since the operational creditor had no objection to the amount remaining in deposit. As the matter had already been reserved, the adjudicating authority was required to decide on the basis of the deposit and affidavit already filed. The direction returning the deposited amount and refusing to take the affidavit on record was set aside, and the amount was ordered to remain in court custody.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1455 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788700</link>
      <description>A corporate debtor had deposited the amount within the time allowed, and an affidavit stated that the amount should not be released to the operational creditor while sanctions-related constraints continued. That statement did not justify undoing the deposit or directing its return, especially since the operational creditor had no objection to the amount remaining in deposit. As the matter had already been reserved, the adjudicating authority was required to decide on the basis of the deposit and affidavit already filed. The direction returning the deposited amount and refusing to take the affidavit on record was set aside, and the amount was ordered to remain in court custody.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>