https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304210 The Tribunal concluded that the deposit of Rs.1,20,00,000/- did not qualify as an Operational Debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As a result, the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was rejected and dismissed. The Letter of Intent was deemed to constitute a real estate transaction for leasing fully furnished premises, not a provision of services. The issue of limitation was not extensively examined due to the primary finding against the Operational Creditor. The claim for refund/forfeiture of the Interest-Free Security Deposit was not addressed in detail following the determination that the amount did not meet the criteria for an Operational Debt. en-us Tue, 21 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Sep 2022 20:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304210 The Tribunal concluded that the deposit of Rs.1,20,00,000/- did not qualify as an Operational Debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As a result, the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was rejected and dismissed. The Letter of Intent was deemed to constitute a real estate transaction for leasing fully furnished premises, not a provision of services. The issue of limitation was not extensively examined due to the primary finding against the Operational Creditor. The claim for refund/forfeiture of the Interest-Free Security Deposit was not addressed in detail following the determination that the amount did not meet the criteria for an Operational Debt. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 21 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304210