https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293862 The Tribunal held that the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not maintainable in the present case. It was concluded that the failure to pay the second instalment under the settlement agreement did not warrant initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process against the debtor, as the unpaid amount did not qualify as operational debt. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and criteria outlined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating insolvency resolution processes and classifying debts. The application was rejected, with no order as to costs. en-us Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 09:43:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293862 The Tribunal held that the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not maintainable in the present case. It was concluded that the failure to pay the second instalment under the settlement agreement did not warrant initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process against the debtor, as the unpaid amount did not qualify as operational debt. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and criteria outlined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating insolvency resolution processes and classifying debts. The application was rejected, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293862