Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.