Pre-existing dispute bars insolvency relief where demand notice is met with quality and supply objections before section 9 action.

A section 9 insolvency application was found not maintainable because the operational creditor could not establish the absence of a genuine pre-existing dispute. The record showed that the respondent had disputed quality, short supply and balance confirmation in reply to the demand notice, and had already commenced proceedings concerning the same commercial transactions. The Adjudicating Authority applied the principle that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be used as a debt recovery tool where a dispute exists before the demand notice, so CIRP initiation was rejected in substance, with liberty to pursue the pending arbitration-related proceedings and other remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in view of the respondent's assertion of a pre-existing dispute and the pending arbitration-related proceedings.

Analysis: The application was required to satisfy the statutory requirements for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process, including proof of operational debt, service of demand notice, and absence of a genuine pre-existing dispute. The material on record showed that the respondent had replied to the demand notice asserting disputes regarding quality, short supply, and balance confirmation, and had already instituted proceedings seeking relief in relation to the same commercial transactions. The Adjudicating Authority applied the settled principle that the insolvency process cannot be used as a substitute for debt recovery and that where a dispute exists prior to the demand notice, section 9 relief is unavailable.

Conclusion: The section 9 application was held not maintainable and the request to initiate CIRP was rejected in substance, with liberty reserved to pursue the pending arbitration-related proceedings and further legal remedies thereafter.

---