https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788892 The Section 7 default had to be confined to unpaid quarterly interest, because the debenture trust deed had extended principal redemption to 30.06.2024 and the principal amount was not yet due when the application was filed; the larger principal claim was therefore incorrect. Debt and default were nevertheless proved through repeated non-payment, the demand notice, and information utility authentication, and payment during pendency did not erase the existing default. In a real estate financing arrangement where the debenture deed, security package, and monitoring rights were project-specific, project-wise insolvency was permissible, so CIRP could be restricted to the concerned project alone and not extend to unrelated projects of the corporate debtor. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788892 The Section 7 default had to be confined to unpaid quarterly interest, because the debenture trust deed had extended principal redemption to 30.06.2024 and the principal amount was not yet due when the application was filed; the larger principal claim was therefore incorrect. Debt and default were nevertheless proved through repeated non-payment, the demand notice, and information utility authentication, and payment during pendency did not erase the existing default. In a real estate financing arrangement where the debenture deed, security package, and monitoring rights were project-specific, project-wise insolvency was permissible, so CIRP could be restricted to the concerned project alone and not extend to unrelated projects of the corporate debtor. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788892