https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431155 Repeated opportunities to file a reply were granted to the corporate debtor, including adjournments and time after the pandemic disruption, but no reply was filed within the time allowed; the forfeiture of that right was therefore upheld and no procedural illegality was found. The document also states that a disbursal of Rs. 1 crore, supported by subsequent acknowledgements and a dishonoured cheque, carried 18% interest and reflected consideration for the time value of money. On that basis, the transaction was treated as a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, with the promissory note regarded only as evidence of acknowledgement. The insolvency admission order was sustained. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2022 10:27:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431155 Repeated opportunities to file a reply were granted to the corporate debtor, including adjournments and time after the pandemic disruption, but no reply was filed within the time allowed; the forfeiture of that right was therefore upheld and no procedural illegality was found. The document also states that a disbursal of Rs. 1 crore, supported by subsequent acknowledgements and a dishonoured cheque, carried 18% interest and reflected consideration for the time value of money. On that basis, the transaction was treated as a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, with the promissory note regarded only as evidence of acknowledgement. The insolvency admission order was sustained. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431155