https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787070 Whether failure to pay monthly interest constituted a default under loan documents is the central issue; the contractual provision granting a lender remedy after thirty months does not negate that monthly interest obligations, if unpaid, create an immediate default and give rise to a cause of action under the insolvency statute. The tribunal's interpretation that default could arise only after thirty months misconstrued the contract. On the facts, interest ceased after March 2019 and repayment was dishonoured, so the lender was entitled to treat the loan as in default and to pursue a petition under Section 7, leading to admission of the petition and setting aside of the prior dismissal. en-us Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Feb 2026 07:35:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787070 Whether failure to pay monthly interest constituted a default under loan documents is the central issue; the contractual provision granting a lender remedy after thirty months does not negate that monthly interest obligations, if unpaid, create an immediate default and give rise to a cause of action under the insolvency statute. The tribunal's interpretation that default could arise only after thirty months misconstrued the contract. On the facts, interest ceased after March 2019 and repayment was dishonoured, so the lender was entitled to treat the loan as in default and to pursue a petition under Section 7, leading to admission of the petition and setting aside of the prior dismissal. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787070