https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438677 Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not protect the default because payment was due under the invoice and letter of credit mechanism after the 60-day period, so the relevant default date fell outside the suspension window. The asserted quality dispute failed because a pre-existing dispute must be real, genuine, and shown to have existed before the demand notice; the record did not prove any effective dispute or service of the alleged arbitration notice on the operational creditor. Non-payment was also linked to discrepancies in LC discounting documents attributable to the corporate debtor, leaving the default unexplained and the insolvency admission sustained. en-us Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jun 2023 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438677 Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not protect the default because payment was due under the invoice and letter of credit mechanism after the 60-day period, so the relevant default date fell outside the suspension window. The asserted quality dispute failed because a pre-existing dispute must be real, genuine, and shown to have existed before the demand notice; the record did not prove any effective dispute or service of the alleged arbitration notice on the operational creditor. Non-payment was also linked to discrepancies in LC discounting documents attributable to the corporate debtor, leaving the default unexplained and the insolvency admission sustained. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438677