https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371066 The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to a discrepancy in the registered office address of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor successfully argued that its registered office was in Gurgaon, Haryana, not Hyderabad as indicated by the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal found that the application should have been filed before the NCLT having jurisdiction over the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Gurgaon, Haryana, and ordered the return of the application for presentation before the appropriate NCLT. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:38:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371066 The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to a discrepancy in the registered office address of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor successfully argued that its registered office was in Gurgaon, Haryana, not Hyderabad as indicated by the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal found that the application should have been filed before the NCLT having jurisdiction over the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Gurgaon, Haryana, and ordered the return of the application for presentation before the appropriate NCLT. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371066