Section 9 IBC requires mandatory documentary compliance; an arbitration clause alone does not create an existing dispute.

A contractual arbitration clause, by itself, does not constitute an existing dispute sufficient to defeat a Section 9 IBC application unless a real dispute is shown to be pending. Compliance with Section 9(3) was treated as mandatory, and the prescribed certificate from a qualifying financial institution confirming non-payment of operational debt was required. A foreign bank that was neither a scheduled bank nor a notified financial institution did not satisfy that requirement. In the absence of the prescribed supporting record, the operational creditor's application was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mere existence of an arbitration clause amounted to an existing dispute so as to justify refusal of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the certificate contemplated under Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was mandatory and whether the foreign bank relied upon by the appellant qualified as a financial institution for that purpose.

Issue (i): Whether the mere existence of an arbitration clause amounted to an existing dispute so as to justify refusal of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: A contractual arbitration clause, by itself, does not establish an existing dispute for the purpose of rejecting an application under Section 9. The refusal of admission cannot rest merely on the presence of such a clause unless there is a real dispute shown to be pending.

Conclusion: The arbitration clause alone did not constitute an existing dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificate contemplated under Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was mandatory and whether the foreign bank relied upon by the appellant qualified as a financial institution for that purpose.

Analysis: The requirement under Section 9(3) was treated as mandatory, and the word used in the provision was held to admit of no relaxation in respect of the prescribed supporting documents. The record did not contain a certificate from a financial institution maintaining the operational creditor's accounts confirming non-payment of unpaid operational debt. The foreign bank referred to was neither a scheduled bank nor a financial institution within the statutory definition, nor had it been notified by the Central Government for this purpose. In the absence of the prescribed record, the application could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The certificate requirement was mandatory and the foreign bank did not satisfy the statutory definition of financial institution.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application was not maintainable, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Section 9(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is mandatory, and an application under Section 9 is not maintainable unless supported by the prescribed certificate from a qualifying financial institution.

---