https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794367 Where foundational documents for an asserted financial debt are materially inconsistent and the surrounding circumstances suggest unauthorised routing of funds or prima facie fraud, mere assertion of debt and default is insufficient for admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The record showed conflicting versions of the facility agreement and corporate guarantee, mismatched dates and signatures, and board resolutions not aligning with company records; on that basis, the debt was not treated as established and insolvency admission was refused. The doctrine of indoor management was also held inapplicable because suspicious circumstances, disputed authority, and allegations of fabrication required inquiry rather than reliance on ostensible internal compliance. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794367 Where foundational documents for an asserted financial debt are materially inconsistent and the surrounding circumstances suggest unauthorised routing of funds or prima facie fraud, mere assertion of debt and default is insufficient for admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The record showed conflicting versions of the facility agreement and corporate guarantee, mismatched dates and signatures, and board resolutions not aligning with company records; on that basis, the debt was not treated as established and insolvency admission was refused. The doctrine of indoor management was also held inapplicable because suspicious circumstances, disputed authority, and allegations of fabrication required inquiry rather than reliance on ostensible internal compliance. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794367