https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366468 A demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may validly be issued through an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor. A section 9 application was treated as maintainable because it was complete, no pre-existing dispute had been shown before the section 8 notice, and a later complaint about inferior quality of goods did not defeat the claim. The limitation objection was rejected because the right to apply arose after the Code came into force and the application was within the period prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The corporate insolvency resolution process was therefore revived and directed to continue. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:39:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366468 A demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may validly be issued through an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor. A section 9 application was treated as maintainable because it was complete, no pre-existing dispute had been shown before the section 8 notice, and a later complaint about inferior quality of goods did not defeat the claim. The limitation objection was rejected because the right to apply arose after the Code came into force and the application was within the period prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The corporate insolvency resolution process was therefore revived and directed to continue. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366468