https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293255 The Tribunal admitted the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, finding the default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal rejected the Corporate Debtor's contentions of substandard quality and overpricing, citing lack of evidence for a genuine pre-existing dispute. The application was deemed timely, with jurisdiction established due to the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Delhi. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit funds for resolution expenses. A moratorium was imposed on the Corporate Debtor in line with the IBC, 2016. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:02:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293255 The Tribunal admitted the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, finding the default in payment by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal rejected the Corporate Debtor's contentions of substandard quality and overpricing, citing lack of evidence for a genuine pre-existing dispute. The application was deemed timely, with jurisdiction established due to the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Delhi. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit funds for resolution expenses. A moratorium was imposed on the Corporate Debtor in line with the IBC, 2016. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293255