<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (10) TMI 1337 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369371</link>
    <description>Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is maintainable only where an operational debt is unpaid and no pre-existing dispute is shown before service of the demand notice. A genuine, earlier and consistently maintained dispute, especially one supported by prior proceedings or adverse adjudications, takes the matter outside insolvency resolution and prevents the process from being used as a debt recovery tool. On the stated facts, the operational creditor&#039;s claim had already been rejected in earlier proceedings and liability remained disputed, so the basis for admitting the petition was absent; the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s interim order was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1337 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369371</link>
      <description>Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is maintainable only where an operational debt is unpaid and no pre-existing dispute is shown before service of the demand notice. A genuine, earlier and consistently maintained dispute, especially one supported by prior proceedings or adverse adjudications, takes the matter outside insolvency resolution and prevents the process from being used as a debt recovery tool. On the stated facts, the operational creditor&#039;s claim had already been rejected in earlier proceedings and liability remained disputed, so the basis for admitting the petition was absent; the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s interim order was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>