Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
A contractual dispute whether non payment of a second instalment constitutes an operational debt under Sec. 5(21) and thus triggers initiation under Section 9 IBC was examined by applying the plain reading of the contract and the Mobilox test. The Tribunal held that a mere right to claim damages (Sec. 3(6)) does not automatically become an operational debt; because the contract reasonably admits the respondent's interpretation, a plausible pre existing dispute exists. Consequence: the pre existing dispute prevents invocation of insolvency remedies and the adjudicating authority's order was affirmed, with the appeal dismissed.
A contractual dispute whether non payment of a second instalment constitutes an operational debt under Sec. 5(21) and thus triggers initiation under Section 9 IBC was examined by applying the plain reading of the contract and the Mobilox test. The Tribunal held that a mere right to claim damages (Sec. 3(6)) does not automatically become an operational debt; because the contract reasonably admits the respondent's interpretation, a plausible pre existing dispute exists. Consequence: the pre existing dispute prevents invocation of insolvency remedies and the adjudicating authority's order was affirmed, with the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.