https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418212 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Applicant, the Corporate Debtor, in a dispute over the return of a security deposit amounting to INR 56,92,040. The Respondent, who held the deposit, was not allowed to adjust rental dues against the deposit post-CIRP initiation. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's claim of set-off lacked evidence and ordered the full return of the security deposit to the Corporate Debtor to maintain financial stability during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and prevent unjust enrichment of the Respondent. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:20:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418212 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Applicant, the Corporate Debtor, in a dispute over the return of a security deposit amounting to INR 56,92,040. The Respondent, who held the deposit, was not allowed to adjust rental dues against the deposit post-CIRP initiation. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's claim of set-off lacked evidence and ordered the full return of the security deposit to the Corporate Debtor to maintain financial stability during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and prevent unjust enrichment of the Respondent. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418212