NCLAT dismisses appeal against NCLT order initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for Rs. 90 lakh default, on coming to a definite conclusion that MCA notification increasing the default threshold to Rs. 1 Cr. is only ‘prospective in nature’ and not a ‘retrospective’ one as it does not in express terms speak about applicability of ‘retrospective’ operation; The Appellant (Corporate Debtor’s shareholder) contended that the amendment increasing IBC threshold was retrospective in nature barring the admission of pending applications which alleged default below Rs. 1 Cr.; Per contra, the Operational Creditor submitted that Sec. 9 of IBC provides substantive right to file an application in triggering CIRP which cannot be taken away on a future date with retrospective effect; NCLAT remarks that in absence of clear indication of a contrary intention in the notification issued by MCA, the substantive rights of individuals to an action is to be decided by the Law that existed when the action was commenced, thus opines that notwithstanding the fact that Govt. is delegated with a power to quantify amount of default at any time after enactment of IBC, this power will not deprive the right which had already accrued to Operational Creditor at the time of projecting the CIRP initiation petition before NCLT; Thus, elucidating that from the tenor, spirit and the plain words employed in the said MCA notification, one cannot infer an intention to take or make it retrospective, NCLAT  concludes that “That apart, if the notification…is made applicable to the pending applications of IBC (filed earlier to the notification in issue) it will create absurd results of wider implications / complications.”:New Delhi NCLAT