https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753294 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging NCLT's rejection of section 9 application for CIRP initiation. The tribunal held that security deposit paid under letter of intent for future license agreement did not constitute operational debt under IBC Section 5(21), as no goods or services were supplied by either party. The deposit was merely to ensure license agreement execution, not linked to any service provision. Additionally, substantial pre-existing disputes between parties rendered the section 9 application non-maintainable per Mobilox Innovations precedent, which requires absence of disputes for operational creditor applications. en-us Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 07:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753294 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging NCLT's rejection of section 9 application for CIRP initiation. The tribunal held that security deposit paid under letter of intent for future license agreement did not constitute operational debt under IBC Section 5(21), as no goods or services were supplied by either party. The deposit was merely to ensure license agreement execution, not linked to any service provision. Additionally, substantial pre-existing disputes between parties rendered the section 9 application non-maintainable per Mobilox Innovations precedent, which requires absence of disputes for operational creditor applications. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753294