https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770386 Interest claimed solely on the basis of unilateral invoices could not sustain a Section 9 IBC application where the supply agreement contained no contractual interest clause, the invoices were not shown to have been accepted by the corporate debtor, and the principal debt had already been paid after reconciliation. A disputed interest component, without mutual consent or established conduct creating a binding obligation, cannot be treated as an operational debt to trigger CIRP. The reasoning also reaffirmed that the IBC is not a debt recovery mechanism, and that reliance on MSME law or the Interest Act was outside the proper forum for deciding maintainability in these proceedings. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2025 18:22:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770386 Interest claimed solely on the basis of unilateral invoices could not sustain a Section 9 IBC application where the supply agreement contained no contractual interest clause, the invoices were not shown to have been accepted by the corporate debtor, and the principal debt had already been paid after reconciliation. A disputed interest component, without mutual consent or established conduct creating a binding obligation, cannot be treated as an operational debt to trigger CIRP. The reasoning also reaffirmed that the IBC is not a debt recovery mechanism, and that reliance on MSME law or the Interest Act was outside the proper forum for deciding maintainability in these proceedings. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770386