NCLAT allowed the appeal filed by the Operational Creditor and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 25.08.2023 rejecting the Section 9 IBC application. It held that, based on six underlying agreements and contemporaneous e-mails, the Corporate Debtor had clearly admitted liability and default in payment of operational debt exceeding the statutory threshold of Rs. 1 lakh (as applicable in 2019), including interest computed as per contract. The absence of rental invoices and the plea of mutual pre-termination were found to be a feeble defence, not amounting to a pre-existing dispute. NCLAT further held that the Section 8 demand notice and Section 9 application were duly compliant with IBC requirements. Consequently, the Section 9 application stands restored for admission and initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT allowed the appeal filed by the Operational Creditor and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 25.08.2023 rejecting the Section 9 IBC application. It held that, based on six underlying agreements and contemporaneous e-mails, the Corporate Debtor had clearly admitted liability and default in payment of operational debt exceeding the statutory threshold of Rs. 1 lakh (as applicable in 2019), including interest computed as per contract. The absence of rental invoices and the plea of mutual pre-termination were found to be a feeble defence, not amounting to a pre-existing dispute. NCLAT further held that the Section 8 demand notice and Section 9 application were duly compliant with IBC requirements. Consequently, the Section 9 application stands restored for admission and initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
