<?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 (5) TMI 1104 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791902</link>
    <description>A subsequent adjustment of dues from cash collateral does not retrospectively erase an earlier default or change the date on which non-payment first occurred; default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code arises when debt becomes due and remains unpaid. The discussion further notes that a Section 7 application is not incomplete merely because the default date or dues are later disputed, so long as the pleadings disclose the facility documents, date of default, demand notice, recall notice, and outstanding liability. On that reasoning, the objection that the application was defective was rejected and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1104 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791902</link>
      <description>A subsequent adjustment of dues from cash collateral does not retrospectively erase an earlier default or change the date on which non-payment first occurred; default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code arises when debt becomes due and remains unpaid. The discussion further notes that a Section 7 application is not incomplete merely because the default date or dues are later disputed, so long as the pleadings disclose the facility documents, date of default, demand notice, recall notice, and outstanding liability. On that reasoning, the objection that the application was defective was rejected and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>