https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756966 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of a Section 9 IBC application. The tribunal held that ten invoices were time-barred as the limitation period expired on 24.07.2019 while the application was filed on 04.03.2020, with the date of default being 25.07.2016. For the eleventh invoice, the tribunal found a pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice was issued, applying the Innoventive judgment ratio. The operational creditor had misrepresented outstanding amounts despite receiving payments, and the corporate debtor had disputed the claimed amounts in response to the Section 8 demand notice. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the application on grounds of limitation and pre-existing dispute. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2024 07:06:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756966 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of a Section 9 IBC application. The tribunal held that ten invoices were time-barred as the limitation period expired on 24.07.2019 while the application was filed on 04.03.2020, with the date of default being 25.07.2016. For the eleventh invoice, the tribunal found a pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice was issued, applying the Innoventive judgment ratio. The operational creditor had misrepresented outstanding amounts despite receiving payments, and the corporate debtor had disputed the claimed amounts in response to the Section 8 demand notice. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the application on grounds of limitation and pre-existing dispute. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756966