https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345393 The petition was rejected by the tribunal due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the existence of a dispute regarding the debt, as evidenced by prior communications. The tribunal found in favor of the petitioner on the issues of the validity of the power of attorney, entitlement as an assignee, and locus standi post-reimbursement by the insurer. The decision was based on the tribunal's analysis of the specific legal issues raised in the case. en-us Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345393 The petition was rejected by the tribunal due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the existence of a dispute regarding the debt, as evidenced by prior communications. The tribunal found in favor of the petitioner on the issues of the validity of the power of attorney, entitlement as an assignee, and locus standi post-reimbursement by the insurer. The decision was based on the tribunal's analysis of the specific legal issues raised in the case. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345393