https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427072 A later notification enhancing the minimum default threshold under the insolvency framework was held to operate prospectively, so it did not divest jurisdiction or make a pending Section 9 application non-maintainable. The application was filed when the lower threshold then in force applied, and there was no indication of retrospective intent. The plea of pre-existing dispute also failed because no timely or cogent material was produced in response to the statutory demand notice, despite an admitted business relationship and earlier payments. The appeal therefore failed on both grounds, and the admission order initiating insolvency proceedings was sustained. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Sep 2022 07:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427072 A later notification enhancing the minimum default threshold under the insolvency framework was held to operate prospectively, so it did not divest jurisdiction or make a pending Section 9 application non-maintainable. The application was filed when the lower threshold then in force applied, and there was no indication of retrospective intent. The plea of pre-existing dispute also failed because no timely or cogent material was produced in response to the statutory demand notice, despite an admitted business relationship and earlier payments. The appeal therefore failed on both grounds, and the admission order initiating insolvency proceedings was sustained. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427072