https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784638 A dispute arose whether an advance under a supply arrangement constituted a "financial debt" so as to permit a s.7 IBC application. NCLAT held that the contract's proviso converting the trade advance into a debt carrying time value of money upon default satisfied s.5(8) IBC; the applicant was therefore a financial creditor, and this classification was affirmed. On limitation, NCLAT applied the SC's suo motu extension orders by adding the unexpired balance period as on 15.03.2020 to 01.03.2022, yielding a revised outer date beyond the filing date; the s.7 application was thus within time. The rejection on limitation was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784638 A dispute arose whether an advance under a supply arrangement constituted a "financial debt" so as to permit a s.7 IBC application. NCLAT held that the contract's proviso converting the trade advance into a debt carrying time value of money upon default satisfied s.5(8) IBC; the applicant was therefore a financial creditor, and this classification was affirmed. On limitation, NCLAT applied the SC's suo motu extension orders by adding the unexpired balance period as on 15.03.2020 to 01.03.2022, yielding a revised outer date beyond the filing date; the s.7 application was thus within time. The rejection on limitation was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784638