<?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 (6) TMI 73 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792692</link>
    <description>Admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was sustained because the loan disbursement was undisputed and the record showed repeated acknowledgements of liability and continuing non-payment. Settlement discussions, partial payments, proposed restructuring, and unadjudicated counterclaims did not negate the existence of default for insolvency admission. The same reasoning applied to the corporate guarantor, as default by the principal borrower stood established and a recall notice had also been issued, so there was no ground to interfere with admission against the guarantor. Both appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 08:47:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 73 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792692</link>
      <description>Admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was sustained because the loan disbursement was undisputed and the record showed repeated acknowledgements of liability and continuing non-payment. Settlement discussions, partial payments, proposed restructuring, and unadjudicated counterclaims did not negate the existence of default for insolvency admission. The same reasoning applied to the corporate guarantor, as default by the principal borrower stood established and a recall notice had also been issued, so there was no ground to interfere with admission against the guarantor. Both appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>