https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413986 The Tribunal found that the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC was properly served as the Corporate Debtor responded, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC. The dispute regarding operational debt was ruled in favor of the Operational Creditor since objections were raised post-demand notice issuance. Despite the CP being filed in 2018 for debts from 2014-2015, acknowledgment in a 2016 letter confirmed timely filing within the limitation period. The Tribunal admitted the petition, declaring a moratorium, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional, and directing necessary IBC procedures. en-us Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:00:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413986 The Tribunal found that the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC was properly served as the Corporate Debtor responded, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC. The dispute regarding operational debt was ruled in favor of the Operational Creditor since objections were raised post-demand notice issuance. Despite the CP being filed in 2018 for debts from 2014-2015, acknowledgment in a 2016 letter confirmed timely filing within the limitation period. The Tribunal admitted the petition, declaring a moratorium, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional, and directing necessary IBC procedures. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413986