https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407767 The note explains that the enhanced minimum default threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as inapplicable to defaults said to have occurred before the amendment date. It also states that a consultancy agreement was not excluded merely because of stamping objections where the corporate debtor had acted on it, accepted services, and made payments over time. On operational debt, the note emphasises that a Section 9 applicant must produce reliable documentary proof of services rendered and non-payment; incomplete invoices and informal emails were treated as insufficient, and insolvency was not to be used as a recovery device without proven debt. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 May 2021 08:29:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407767 The note explains that the enhanced minimum default threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as inapplicable to defaults said to have occurred before the amendment date. It also states that a consultancy agreement was not excluded merely because of stamping objections where the corporate debtor had acted on it, accepted services, and made payments over time. On operational debt, the note emphasises that a Section 9 applicant must produce reliable documentary proof of services rendered and non-payment; incomplete invoices and informal emails were treated as insufficient, and insolvency was not to be used as a recovery device without proven debt. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407767