https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776621 The NCLAT upheld the dismissal of the CIRP petition filed under Section 9 IBC, emphasizing that the creditor must prove an undisputed debt and non-payment despite demand before initiating CIRP. The tribunal noted partial payments by the respondent and questioned the presumption of the existence and terms of the work order, which required independent verification. It held that the adjudicating authority erred in relying on presumed contract terms and applying the 90-day payment period under Section 10A IBC without sufficient proof. The tribunal affirmed that IBC is not a debt recovery tool but a mechanism to address default by design or default. The order dismissing the CIRP petition was maintained, with the reasoning modified to reflect the need for factual determination of contractual obligations and payment timelines. en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776621 The NCLAT upheld the dismissal of the CIRP petition filed under Section 9 IBC, emphasizing that the creditor must prove an undisputed debt and non-payment despite demand before initiating CIRP. The tribunal noted partial payments by the respondent and questioned the presumption of the existence and terms of the work order, which required independent verification. It held that the adjudicating authority erred in relying on presumed contract terms and applying the 90-day payment period under Section 10A IBC without sufficient proof. The tribunal affirmed that IBC is not a debt recovery tool but a mechanism to address default by design or default. The order dismissing the CIRP petition was maintained, with the reasoning modified to reflect the need for factual determination of contractual obligations and payment timelines. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776621