https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752327 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging CIRP admission under Section 9 of IBC. The appellant argued no liability existed due to acting as agent and disputed demand notice service. The NCLAT held that without a tripartite agreement, the appellant remained liable for outstanding dues and could not invoke Section 230 of Indian Contract Act to transfer liability. The demand notice was validly served to the registered address despite minor address discrepancies, as parties had continuous business dealings. The court found clear debt admission through emails dated 21.07.2017 and 18.09.2017, making limitation period restart from the admission date. With established debt, default, and no genuine dispute, the CIRP admission was upheld. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2024 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752327 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging CIRP admission under Section 9 of IBC. The appellant argued no liability existed due to acting as agent and disputed demand notice service. The NCLAT held that without a tripartite agreement, the appellant remained liable for outstanding dues and could not invoke Section 230 of Indian Contract Act to transfer liability. The demand notice was validly served to the registered address despite minor address discrepancies, as parties had continuous business dealings. The court found clear debt admission through emails dated 21.07.2017 and 18.09.2017, making limitation period restart from the admission date. With established debt, default, and no genuine dispute, the CIRP admission was upheld. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752327