<?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 (4) TMI 440 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789371</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous material, including allegations of sub-standard supply, machine failure, lab testing, WhatsApp communications and a later debit note, was treated as sufficient to indicate a pre-existing dispute before the Section 8 demand notice, so the Section 9 insolvency petition could not be rejected as a mere afterthought. The appellate forum also found the impugned order cryptic and unsustainable because key documents, including the alleged communication and lab report, were not on record. In these circumstances, the order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 440 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789371</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous material, including allegations of sub-standard supply, machine failure, lab testing, WhatsApp communications and a later debit note, was treated as sufficient to indicate a pre-existing dispute before the Section 8 demand notice, so the Section 9 insolvency petition could not be rejected as a mere afterthought. The appellate forum also found the impugned order cryptic and unsustainable because key documents, including the alleged communication and lab report, were not on record. In these circumstances, the order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>