https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351700 The application filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent company was rejected. The rejection was primarily due to the lack of documentary evidence to prove default by the respondent. The defective notice issued by the applicant's advocate also played a significant role in the dismissal of the application. The burden of proof was on the applicant, who failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, including signed documents and supporting materials, to substantiate the claim of default. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in proving operational debt and default. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351700 The application filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent company was rejected. The rejection was primarily due to the lack of documentary evidence to prove default by the respondent. The defective notice issued by the applicant's advocate also played a significant role in the dismissal of the application. The burden of proof was on the applicant, who failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, including signed documents and supporting materials, to substantiate the claim of default. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in proving operational debt and default. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351700