https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778272 NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order that had dismissed the Section 9 IBC petition. The Bench held the demand notice in Form 3 with attached invoices complied with Rule 5 and established operational debt and default; rejecting the petition as hyper-technical was improper. The tribunal erred in finding a pre-existing dispute: seizure actions occurred after relevant dealings and no prior notice, suit or arbitration was produced to substantiate a dispute. The appeal succeeds and the earlier order is quashed. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778272 NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order that had dismissed the Section 9 IBC petition. The Bench held the demand notice in Form 3 with attached invoices complied with Rule 5 and established operational debt and default; rejecting the petition as hyper-technical was improper. The tribunal erred in finding a pre-existing dispute: seizure actions occurred after relevant dealings and no prior notice, suit or arbitration was produced to substantiate a dispute. The appeal succeeds and the earlier order is quashed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778272