{"id":233797,"date":"2020-08-12T09:30:44","date_gmt":"2020-08-12T04:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=233797"},"modified":"2020-09-11T12:34:51","modified_gmt":"2020-09-11T07:04:51","slug":"nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: <\/strong>The 3-Member Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson), V.P. Singh, Member (Technical) and Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical), rejected the appeal filed by the Operational Creditor against the order of NCLT, after finding a need for \u2018further investigation\u2019 in the case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Appellant (Operational Creditor) and the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 7 April 2018 for the transfer of undertaking on a Slump Sale basis under Section 2(42-C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a lump sum amount of Rs 123 Crores. The appellant contended that the Corporate Debtor had only transferred a sum of Rs 65 Crores and the remaining debt of Rs 58 Crores was unpaid.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Appellant contended that after the satisfaction of \u2018condition precedent\u2019 relating to transfer, a compliance notice was submitted to the Corporate Debtor on 4 June 2018, which was acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor. It was further submitted, the sale was consummated and the possession of Undertaking was handed over by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. Demand for payment was regularly communicated to the debtor but no payment was made. He also contended that the NCLT erred in deciding the judgement by not appreciating the facts and correct perspective of law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Respondent contended that the impugned appeal was premised on the suppression of facts and information, misrepresentation and gross misconstruction of the provision of the business transfer agreement. They further argued that it had replied to the demand notices and the payment of outstanding debt was made into 3 Tranche Payments as more particularly specified in the BTA. They also argued that post slump sale transaction was under the scope of IBC proceedings and in reply to the demand notice the corporate Debtor raised the issue of pre-existing dispute.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Tribunal relied on the principle of \u2018pre-existence\u2019 of dispute as interpreted in the case of <em>Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd.<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/96bNa54c\">(2018) 1 SCC 353<\/a><strong>.<\/strong> The Court said that \u201call that the Adjudicating Authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the \u201cdispute\u201d is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster\u201d. After examining the documents supplied by both the parties, the Tribunal found that issues had been raised by the corporate debtor before the receipt of demand notices which proved \u2018pre-existence\u2019 of dispute and there was a plausible contention in the defence raised by the corporate debtor which required further investigation. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and no substance was found in the appeal. [Allied Silica Limited v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.,\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/sm5zbOsl\"><b>2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 613<\/b><\/a>, decided on 11-08-2020].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: The 3-Member Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson), V.P. Singh, Member (Technical) and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":153604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[43055,13081,22014,12521,34910,43056],"class_list":["post-233797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-debtor","tag-income-tax-act","tag-nclat","tag-nclt","tag-operational-creditor","tag-outstanding-debt"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: The 3-Member Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson), V.P. Singh, Member (Technical) and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-08-12T04:00:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-09-11T07:04:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"844\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/\",\"name\":\"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-12T04:00:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-09-11T07:04:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":844},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments","og_description":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: The 3-Member Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson), V.P. Singh, Member (Technical) and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-08-12T04:00:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-09-11T07:04:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/","name":"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","datePublished":"2020-08-12T04:00:44+00:00","dateModified":"2020-09-11T07:04:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","width":1330,"height":844},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/12\/nclat-rejects-corporate-creditors-demand-of-payment-of-outstanding-operational-debt-worth-rs-58-crores-after-finding-plausible-contention-in-debtors-arguments\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCLAT rejects Corporate Creditor\u2019s demand of payment of outstanding operational debt worth Rs 58 crores, after finding \u2018plausible contention\u2019 in debtor\u2019s arguments"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293529,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/31\/nclat-upheld-nclt-order-debt-remains-unpaid-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":233797,"position":0},"title":"No benefit to Corporate Debtor, if Criminal Proceedings were initiated after receipt of Demand Notice: NCLAT upholds NCLT&#8217;s order","author":"Ritu","date":"May 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While upholding NCLT's order the NCLAT held that in the present case there is a debt which remained unpaid by the Operational Creditor.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national company law appellate tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":304677,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/13\/default-occurred-when-post-dated-cheques-bounced-nclt-directs-to-initiate-insolvency-process-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":233797,"position":1},"title":"Default occurred when post-dated cheques bounced; NCLT directs to initiate insolvency process","author":"Ritu","date":"October 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor failed to prove a pre-existing dispute to justify the rejection of the Section 9 application.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"nclt","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":304850,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/default-occurred-when-post-dated-cheques-bounced-nclt-directs-to-initiate-insolvency-process-scc-blog-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":233797,"position":2},"title":"NCLT orders initiation of Insolvency Process due to default in payment and bounced Post-Dated Cheques","author":"Ritu","date":"October 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor failed to prove a pre-existing dispute to justify the rejection of the Section 9 application.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"nclt","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/national-company-law-tribunal.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294481,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/13\/nclat-operational-creditor-cannot-seek-cirp-section-9-ibc-exist-real-dispute-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":233797,"position":3},"title":"Operational creditor cannot seek to initiate CIRP against Corporate Debtor when real dispute exists: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"June 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority's order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national company law appellate tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244324,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/24\/nclt-jurisdiction\/","url_meta":{"origin":233797,"position":4},"title":"NCLAT | Is it open to NCLT, while deciding S. 9 IBC application, to pass an order directing parties to go for Arbitration? Appellate Commission explains NCLT&#8217;s jurisdiction in such cases","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 24, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson) and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member) observed that: \u201cI&B Code would not permit the Adjudicating Authority to make a roving enquiry into the aspect of solvency or insolvency of the Corporate Debtor except\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250586,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/03\/claim-for-refund-of-advance\/","url_meta":{"origin":233797,"position":5},"title":"Claim for Refund of Advance: Whether an Operational Debt","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Rahul Poddar*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-4.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-4.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-4.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-4.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-4.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=233797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233797\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}