<?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>2023 (8) TMI 1710 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467994</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency petition is not maintainable where the record shows a plausible pre-existing dispute before initiation. Prior correspondence from the corporate debtor complained that the turmeric and other spices supplied were sub-standard and spurious, and the Section 8 demand notice had already been issued before the Section 9 filing. The tribunal treated the letters dated 27.06.2018 and 04.08.2018 as sufficient evidence that the dispute arose earlier, and held that the Adjudicating Authority misread the correspondence by focusing on the addressee rather than the disputed quality of goods. The admission order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 12:15:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1710 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467994</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency petition is not maintainable where the record shows a plausible pre-existing dispute before initiation. Prior correspondence from the corporate debtor complained that the turmeric and other spices supplied were sub-standard and spurious, and the Section 8 demand notice had already been issued before the Section 9 filing. The tribunal treated the letters dated 27.06.2018 and 04.08.2018 as sufficient evidence that the dispute arose earlier, and held that the Adjudicating Authority misread the correspondence by focusing on the addressee rather than the disputed quality of goods. The admission order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>