https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289924 A respondent who merely advanced money for supply of coal, without itself supplying goods or rendering services, did not satisfy the requirements of an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The work order also indicated that if the arrangement was in substance a joint venture investment, the claim would fall within a financial creditor's claim rather than an operational debt. On either analysis, the statutory ingredients for operational creditor status were absent, so the Section 9 application was not maintainable. en-us Thu, 24 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:28:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289924 A respondent who merely advanced money for supply of coal, without itself supplying goods or rendering services, did not satisfy the requirements of an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The work order also indicated that if the arrangement was in substance a joint venture investment, the claim would fall within a financial creditor's claim rather than an operational debt. On either analysis, the statutory ingredients for operational creditor status were absent, so the Section 9 application was not maintainable. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 24 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289924