https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784641 The dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be sustained by enlarging the set of invoices asserted to fall outside the Section 10A bar, and whether the AA erred in rejecting the petition despite the operational debt exceeding the Section 4 threshold. The Appellate Tribunal held that the operational creditor, having expressly pleaded that only 7 invoices (?1.65 crore) were not hit by Section 10A, was estopped from subsequently adding further invoices to inflate default; reopening invoice segregation would amount to impermissible shifting of the goalposts and misuse of IBC as a recovery tool. As the corporate debtor had deposited ?1.65 crore by FDR with the NCLT Registry, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784641 The dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be sustained by enlarging the set of invoices asserted to fall outside the Section 10A bar, and whether the AA erred in rejecting the petition despite the operational debt exceeding the Section 4 threshold. The Appellate Tribunal held that the operational creditor, having expressly pleaded that only 7 invoices (?1.65 crore) were not hit by Section 10A, was estopped from subsequently adding further invoices to inflate default; reopening invoice segregation would amount to impermissible shifting of the goalposts and misuse of IBC as a recovery tool. As the corporate debtor had deposited ?1.65 crore by FDR with the NCLT Registry, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784641