https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417952 The application was held not maintainable because, after the enhanced pecuniary threshold, the claim remained below the Tribunal's jurisdiction and no proof showed an earlier filing before another bench. The alleged WhatsApp messages were rejected as evidence because no Section 65B(4) certificate was produced and there was no reliable proof of authority to bind the corporate debtor. The petitioner was also found not to be a financial creditor, as the share application money was not shown to have been disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. The petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Feb 2022 08:24:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417952 The application was held not maintainable because, after the enhanced pecuniary threshold, the claim remained below the Tribunal's jurisdiction and no proof showed an earlier filing before another bench. The alleged WhatsApp messages were rejected as evidence because no Section 65B(4) certificate was produced and there was no reliable proof of authority to bind the corporate debtor. The petitioner was also found not to be a financial creditor, as the share application money was not shown to have been disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. The petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417952