<?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 1280 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790211</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency application must be rejected where the operational creditor has received notice of a genuine, pre-existing dispute supported by evidence. Communications before the demand notice showed complaints about defective and rusted goods, and email correspondence reflected acknowledgment of quality issues and discussions on compensation, establishing an antecedent dispute. The attempt to treat a later invoice as independent was not accepted because the supplies arose from a single purchase order and earlier consignments affected the later shipment. The Tribunal also declined to conduct a final merits review of CFR terms or the Sale of Goods Act in the summary insolvency forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1280 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790211</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency application must be rejected where the operational creditor has received notice of a genuine, pre-existing dispute supported by evidence. Communications before the demand notice showed complaints about defective and rusted goods, and email correspondence reflected acknowledgment of quality issues and discussions on compensation, establishing an antecedent dispute. The attempt to treat a later invoice as independent was not accepted because the supplies arose from a single purchase order and earlier consignments affected the later shipment. The Tribunal also declined to conduct a final merits review of CFR terms or the Sale of Goods Act in the summary insolvency forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>