https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195605 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It determined that the appellant did not qualify as an 'Operational Creditor' as defined in the Code, as their claim for a refund of a deposit for a plot did not meet the criteria of an operational debt. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded, as the appellant's claim did not align with the definitions of an 'Operational Creditor' or 'Operational Debt' under the I&B Code 2016. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195605 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It determined that the appellant did not qualify as an 'Operational Creditor' as defined in the Code, as their claim for a refund of a deposit for a plot did not meet the criteria of an operational debt. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded, as the appellant's claim did not align with the definitions of an 'Operational Creditor' or 'Operational Debt' under the I&B Code 2016. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195605