Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
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 interest mentioned only in invoices, without a contractual agreement or established past practice, could be included in operational debt for the purpose of meeting the statutory threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The invoices contained an interest clause, but no formal agreement between the parties provided for levy of interest on delayed payment. There was also no evidence that interest had ever been paid earlier in the course of dealings. The Appellant failed to show mutual consent or conduct from which acceptance of the interest term could be inferred. In these circumstances, a unilateral stipulation in invoices could not override the absence of an agreed contractual term. The interest claim was therefore not part of enforceable operational debt for computing the minimum default amount required for a Section 9 application. The dispute over interest was also not one capable of being finally resolved in summary insolvency proceedings.
Conclusion: Interest claimed only through invoices, without a supporting agreement or proven mutual practice, could not be added to the principal amount for determining the threshold under the Code. The Section 9 application was below the statutory minimum and was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Interest can form part of operational debt only when it is contractually agreed or otherwise shown by mutual conduct and practice; a unilateral invoice stipulation of interest, standing alone, cannot be included to satisfy the Section 4 threshold for a Section 9 insolvency .