Dispute settlement renders insolvency application void. Adjudicating Authority lacks power to appoint Interim Resolution Professional.

The Appellate Tribunal found that the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not maintainable due to the existence of a dispute before the demand notice. The parties settled the dispute, making the initiation of the Resolution process unnecessary. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the power to appoint an 'Interim Resolution Professional' of its own choice. Consequently, the impugned order admitting the application under Section 9 was set aside, and all related orders were declared illegal. The appellant company was released from legal constraints and allowed to operate independently.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
2. Appointment of an 'Interim Resolution Professional'
3. Existence of a dispute prior to the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
4. Authority of the Adjudicating Authority to appoint a Resolution Professional of its own choice
5. Settlement between the parties

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order admitting an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the Adjudicating Authority. The order included the appointment of an 'Interim Resolution Professional' and the initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.'

2. The appellant argued that a dispute existed before the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was issued. The Adjudicating Authority appointed an 'Interim Resolution Professional' without a suggestion from the 'Operational Creditor' or the Board, raising questions about the authority's power to make such appointments.

3. The respondent accepted that the 'Interim Resolution Professional' was not appointed based on their suggestion. It was revealed that the parties had reached a settlement in writing, which they considered binding.

4. A sub-contract works agreement was discussed, indicating that the respondent failed to complete the works as per the agreement terms. The appellant claimed that the respondent abandoned the works willfully, leading to a dispute existing before the demand notice was issued.

5. The Appellate Tribunal found that the application under Section 9 was not maintainable due to the existence of a dispute before the demand notice. The parties had settled the dispute, rendering the initiation of the Resolution process unnecessary. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority did not have the power to appoint an 'Interim Resolution Professional' of its own choice.

6. Consequently, the impugned order admitting the application under Section 9 was set aside. All orders related to the appointment of the 'Interim Resolution Professional,' declaration of moratorium, freezing of accounts, and other actions were declared illegal and dismissed. The appellant company was released from the legal constraints and allowed to function independently.

7. The 'Interim Resolution Professional' could not function due to an interim stay order, eliminating the need for payment. The appeal was allowed, and the Interlocutory Application was disposed of with no costs awarded in the case.

---