https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421316 The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Section 9 Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It held that the default of an instalment of a settlement agreement did not constitute operational debt. The agreements in question established rights and obligations, not settlement terms. The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Adjudicating Authority's interpretation of "Operational Debt" was deemed incorrect, and compliance with Section 8 and Section 9 provisions was clarified regarding notice of dispute and application filing. The Corporate Debtor's timely dispute raised in response to the Demand Notice was considered valid, leading to the setting aside of the rejection. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:56:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421316 The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Section 9 Application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It held that the default of an instalment of a settlement agreement did not constitute operational debt. The agreements in question established rights and obligations, not settlement terms. The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Adjudicating Authority's interpretation of "Operational Debt" was deemed incorrect, and compliance with Section 8 and Section 9 provisions was clarified regarding notice of dispute and application filing. The Corporate Debtor's timely dispute raised in response to the Demand Notice was considered valid, leading to the setting aside of the rejection. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421316