Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the admission of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be interfered with on the ground that proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 were pending and that no debt was payable.
Analysis: The pending recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal did not bar initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Once moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 commenced, the pending proceedings could not continue. The appellant was unable to support the plea of absence of debt or default by a clear affidavit, and also acknowledged that the corporate debtor had taken the loan from the bank.
Conclusion: The admission of the insolvency application was not liable to be interfered with, and the challenge failed.