Pre-existing dispute bars section 9 insolvency action where quality complaints predated the demand notice and defeat maintainability.

An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held not maintainable because a pre-existing dispute over the quality and short supply of goods existed before the section 8 demand notice. Contemporaneous email correspondence recorded complaints about faulty and substandard material, and later acknowledgements of dues did not erase that earlier dispute. The Adjudicating Authority was required only to determine whether a dispute existed before the notice and could not examine the merits of the underlying claim or counterclaim. The admission order and corporate insolvency resolution process were set aside, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in view of a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality and short supply of goods supplied by the operational creditor.

Analysis: The demand notice under section 8(1) was issued after email correspondence recording complaints about faulty and substandard material. The record also contained later communications acknowledging dues, but those communications did not negate the earlier dispute. In proceedings under section 9, the Adjudicating Authority cannot adjudicate the merits of the underlying claim or counterclaim and must only ascertain whether a dispute existed before issuance of the demand notice. The contemporaneous correspondence showed that the dispute regarding quality of supplies pre-dated the notice.

Conclusion: The application under section 9 was not maintainable because a pre-existing dispute existed. The admission order and the corporate insolvency resolution process were set aside, and the application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the ground of pre-existing dispute, and the insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor were brought to an end, while the limited issue of the interim resolution professional's fee and costs was left for determination by the Adjudicating Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be rejected where a real dispute between the parties existed before the section 8 demand notice, and the Adjudicating Authority cannot enter into adjudication of the underlying claim on merits.

---