Pre-existing dispute under insolvency law is not shown merely by MSME Council reference; independent debt dispute must exist.

Mere reference of a claim to the MSME Facilitation Council does not, by itself, establish a pre-existing dispute under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute contemplated by Section 5(6) must relate to the debt, goods or services, or a breach of representation or warranty, and must exist independently of the insolvency filing. A reference under Sections 17 and 18 of the MSME Development Act operates in a different statutory context and cannot alone justify rejection of a Section 9 application. Where the debt is supported by invoices and related documents, deduction of TDS does not, by itself, negate the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference by the operational creditor to the MSME Facilitation Council, by itself, establishes a pre-existing dispute so as to justify rejection of a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The dispute contemplated by Section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 concerns an existing controversy relating to the debt, the quality of goods or services, or breach of representation or warranty. The reference mechanism under Sections 17 and 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 operates in a different statutory setting and the word "dispute" in that context derives colour from the recovery claim itself. Mere initiation of proceedings before the MSME authority, without any corresponding dispute raised by the corporate debtor regarding the debt or services, does not establish a pre-existing dispute under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The creditor's claim was founded on invoices and supporting documents, and deduction of TDS did not by itself defeat the debt claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Section 9 application on the ground of pre-existing dispute was incorrect, and the application ought not to have been dismissed on that basis.

---