<?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 1162 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790093</link>
    <description>Perjury proceedings require prima facie proof of deliberate falsehood on a material matter, supported by distinct evidence, and must be expedient in the interest of justice. A defence affidavit that merely disputes allegations in a later challenge to a resolution plan does not become perjury absent mala fide intent, deception, or material falsity. The approved resolution plan had already attained finality under the insolvency framework, so repeated efforts to reopen the concluded process were treated as frivolous. The application for perjury action was rejected, and the costs order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1162 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790093</link>
      <description>Perjury proceedings require prima facie proof of deliberate falsehood on a material matter, supported by distinct evidence, and must be expedient in the interest of justice. A defence affidavit that merely disputes allegations in a later challenge to a resolution plan does not become perjury absent mala fide intent, deception, or material falsity. The approved resolution plan had already attained finality under the insolvency framework, so repeated efforts to reopen the concluded process were treated as frivolous. The application for perjury action was rejected, and the costs order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>