Appeal under Insolvency Code rejected due to liability dispute despite correspondence evidence.

The appeal filed by 'Universal Solutions of America LLC' under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against 'M/s. The Travancore Cements Limited' was rejected by the Tribunal. The rejection was based on the existence of a dispute regarding liability acceptance by the Corporate Debtor, as evidenced by correspondence prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice. Despite the Appellant's contentions, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the appeal but allowing the Appellant to seek relief from the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues:
- Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.
- Existence of dispute regarding liability acceptance by the Corporate Debtor.
- Rejection of the appeal challenging the Adjudicating Authority's decision.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, 'Universal Solutions of America LLC,' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against 'M/s. The Travancore Cements Limited,' which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Corporate Debtor had intimated the Appellant about the supply of Clinker without a letter of credit, leading to quality and operational problems causing a loss of Rs. 23,70,583. The Corporate Debtor intended to recover this loss from pending bills.

2. The rejection of the application under Section 9 was based on the existence of a dispute. The Adjudicating Authority noted that prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code, there was a clear dispute as evidenced by letters dated 14th September, 2017, and 9th October, 2017. The Corporate Debtor opposed the application, indicating an ongoing disagreement regarding the liability.

3. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider the letters showing the Corporate Debtor's acceptance of liability. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this aspect, focusing instead on the presence of a dispute before the Demand Notice was issued. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the appeal but allowing the Appellant to seek appropriate relief from the relevant forum despite the dismissal of the appeal.

---