https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427963 The appellate tribunal concluded that the claim by the State of Karnataka did not qualify as a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal also held that the claim was belated and could not be considered due to being filed after the prescribed time period. Additionally, the tribunal determined that the Resolution Professional does not have the authority to admit claims suo-motu without a formal submission. As a result, the tribunal set aside the order directing consideration of the claim by the Committee of Creditors, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time-bound nature of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427963 The appellate tribunal concluded that the claim by the State of Karnataka did not qualify as a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal also held that the claim was belated and could not be considered due to being filed after the prescribed time period. Additionally, the tribunal determined that the Resolution Professional does not have the authority to admit claims suo-motu without a formal submission. As a result, the tribunal set aside the order directing consideration of the claim by the Committee of Creditors, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time-bound nature of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427963