Just a moment...
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 application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable and liable to be admitted on proof of operational debt, default, absence of dispute, limitation, and territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: The application was supported by the contractual and invoicing record, the demand notice was shown to have been duly served, and no notice of dispute or payment was forthcoming from the corporate debtor. The claim was within limitation as the date of default and the filing date placed the application within time. The registered office of the corporate debtor being in Delhi, territorial jurisdiction was made out. In the absence of any contest from the corporate debtor, the requirements for admission under section 9 were satisfied.
Conclusion: The application was admitted under section 9(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the corporate insolvency resolution process was directed to commence.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding culminated in initiation of insolvency resolution against the corporate debtor, with moratorium and appointment of an interim resolution professional following admission.
Ratio Decidendi: An uncontested operational debt claim supported by proof of default, valid demand notice service, and compliance with the statutory admission requirements under section 9 warrants admission of the insolvency application and commencement of moratorium.