https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401399 The Tribunal allowed the Application in part, setting aside the rejection of the Applicant's claim by Respondent No. 1 (R1) and directing R1 to reinstate the claim. It was concluded that Clause 2.1(ii) of the Subordination Agreement prevails over Clause 2.2, ensuring the Applicant's debt continues to exist despite the event of default. The Tribunal emphasized that R1 exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the claim and highlighted public interest considerations, protecting the interests of various investors within the IL&FS group. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401399 The Tribunal allowed the Application in part, setting aside the rejection of the Applicant's claim by Respondent No. 1 (R1) and directing R1 to reinstate the claim. It was concluded that Clause 2.1(ii) of the Subordination Agreement prevails over Clause 2.2, ensuring the Applicant's debt continues to exist despite the event of default. The Tribunal emphasized that R1 exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the claim and highlighted public interest considerations, protecting the interests of various investors within the IL&FS group. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401399