https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296308 The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the default in payment under a Settlement Agreement did not constitute financial debt. The Tribunal found that the Settlement Agreement did not create a financial debt obligation, as it did not involve a borrowing by the Respondent from the Appellant. The bouncing of cheques under the Agreement did not signify default in financial debt, leading to the conclusion that initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that insolvency proceedings are distinct from mere recovery actions, and the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of legal grounds for insolvency initiation based on the Settlement Agreement breach. en-us Wed, 25 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296308 The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the default in payment under a Settlement Agreement did not constitute financial debt. The Tribunal found that the Settlement Agreement did not create a financial debt obligation, as it did not involve a borrowing by the Respondent from the Appellant. The bouncing of cheques under the Agreement did not signify default in financial debt, leading to the conclusion that initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that insolvency proceedings are distinct from mere recovery actions, and the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of legal grounds for insolvency initiation based on the Settlement Agreement breach. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 25 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296308