https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291792 An insolvency petition under the IBC was found not maintainable because the filing lacked valid authorisation: the vakalatnama was not duly signed by the applicant, the pleadings and affidavit were signed by the advocate, and the Tribunal treated such defective authorisation as incapable of later cure once pleadings were complete. The claim also lost its character as a financial debt because the advance had been converted into capital contribution, with the applicant becoming a general partner in the LLP. On that basis, the applicant was not a financial creditor entitled to initiate CIRP. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2020 20:21:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291792 An insolvency petition under the IBC was found not maintainable because the filing lacked valid authorisation: the vakalatnama was not duly signed by the applicant, the pleadings and affidavit were signed by the advocate, and the Tribunal treated such defective authorisation as incapable of later cure once pleadings were complete. The claim also lost its character as a financial debt because the advance had been converted into capital contribution, with the applicant becoming a general partner in the LLP. On that basis, the applicant was not a financial creditor entitled to initiate CIRP. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291792