https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418003 A claim for repayment of an advance paid under a contract for supply of goods was treated as an operational debt because operational debt has a nexus with the supply of goods or services and is not confined to the supplier alone; the creditor was therefore regarded as an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The company's memorandum of association remained binding where it expressly contemplated takeover of the proprietary concern, and an unproved board resolution could not displace that charter. Limitation under Article 137 ran from default, and the Section 9 application was within time because the final refusal to repay occurred later after continuing correspondence. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418003 A claim for repayment of an advance paid under a contract for supply of goods was treated as an operational debt because operational debt has a nexus with the supply of goods or services and is not confined to the supplier alone; the creditor was therefore regarded as an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The company's memorandum of association remained binding where it expressly contemplated takeover of the proprietary concern, and an unproved board resolution could not displace that charter. Limitation under Article 137 ran from default, and the Section 9 application was within time because the final refusal to repay occurred later after continuing correspondence. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418003