Tribunal overturns rejection of insolvency application due to lack of pre-existing dispute.

The Tribunal concluded that there was no pre-existing dispute when the Demand Notice under Section 8 was issued. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Application under Section 9 was overturned as it was based on an incorrect assumption of a dispute. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to admit the Application and proceed with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, emphasizing the need for clear and substantial evidence of a dispute to reject such applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a pre-existing dispute when the Notice under Section 8 was issued.
2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pre-existing Dispute:
The core issue under consideration was whether a pre-existing dispute existed when the Operational Creditor issued the Notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application based on emails dated 04.05.2018 and 30.07.2018, which allegedly indicated quality issues with the gelatine supplied. However, the Tribunal found that these emails did not constitute a substantial dispute. The email dated 30.07.2018 mentioned that the quality of the gelatine was good, with only a minor issue of wooden chips in the bags, which was to be addressed in future supplies. The Tribunal emphasized that a real dispute involves a conflict or controversy, which was not evident in this case. The Corporate Debtor's acknowledgment of debt in the meeting on 27.07.2018 and subsequent communications further negated the existence of any substantial dispute.

2. Error in Rejecting the Application:
The Tribunal examined whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Application under Section 9. The Operational Creditor had issued a Demand Notice under Section 8, to which the Corporate Debtor responded without mentioning any pre-existing dispute. The Tribunal highlighted the statutory purpose of requiring the Corporate Debtor to notify the Operational Creditor of any existing dispute in its reply to the Section 8 notice. The absence of such a mention allowed the Operational Creditor to proceed with filing the Application under Section 9. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in "Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited" to underline that the Adjudicating Authority must determine the existence of a dispute before rejecting an Application under Section 9. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had relied on emails that did not indicate a real dispute and failed to acknowledge the repeated admissions of debt by the Corporate Debtor.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was no pre-existing dispute when the Demand Notice under Section 8 was issued. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Application under Section 9 was based on an incorrect assumption of a dispute. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to admit the Application and proceed with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of clear and substantial evidence of a dispute to reject an Application under Section 9.

---