Driven by excellence, focused on strategies for the longer term.

This is the crux of who we are. It is an articulation of precision in purpose, from the Firm’s beginnings to where we are today. Our collective eye is unerringly trained on tomorrow.

Deep sectoral expertise across services and industries.

Our insistence on strategic advisory exacts an in-depth understanding of and involvement with our clients’ businesses and industries. We engage not just individual businesses, but also contribute to the country’s legal and regulatory frameworks.

Personal commitment supported by experience and grit.

We commit early. We pull together internally for greater support. Every effort is sincere, every individual deeply dedicated to their task, their role, to the Firm.

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Knowledge-sharing is intrinsic to equity and inclusivity.

This is a repository of thought leadership, deep insights and strong viewpoints, legal and other news and events and how they impact the industry and our clients.

Relevance is critical to growth. It necessitates a firm that is dynamic and responsive.

Amplifying intrinsic talent, sharpening skills, expanding knowledge, is vital to leading. It defines every aspect of how our firm functions and transacts. This is how we create new benchmarks and set industry standards.

  • Connect
Jul 01, 2017

Scope of the term ‘dispute’ under Section 5 (6) of the IBC

In Kirusa Software Private Limited v. Mobilox Innovations Private Limited,[1] the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) held that the term ‘dispute’ has to be given a wide meaning, for the purpose of Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC, which deal with applications made by an operational creditor. In the instant case, NCLAT held that the term ‘dispute’ has to be given an inclusive meaning and not an exhaustive one, provided it is relatable to the existence of the amount of the debt, quality of good or service or breach of a representation or warranty as provided under Section 5(6) of the IBC. The term should thus cover all disputes on debt, default etc. without being limited to only two ways of disputing a demand made by an operational creditor, i.e. a pending suit or an arbitration.

The NCLAT however also cautioned against an illusory dispute being raised for the first time while replying to the notice under Section 8 of the IBC as a tool to reject an application under Section 9 of the IBC.

[1]     Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 6 of 2017.

 

TAGS

SHARE

Subscribe

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.

RELATED READING

Inter Alia

SC Held That Mere Contemplation of Urgent Relief Should Not Be a Guise to Bypass Statutory Pre-Litigation Mediation

Jan 23, 2024 | Dispute Resolution
Inter Alia

Foreign Exchange Management (Manner of Receipt and Payment) Regulations, 2023

Jan 23, 2024 | Financial Services Private Equity & Venture Capital Regulatory & Securities
Inter Alia

Unilateral Revision in Arbitrator’s Fees Does Not Terminate Mandate under Section 12 of Arbitration Act

Jan 23, 2024 | Dispute Resolution