Appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence and merit, following Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the Appellant's arguments unsupported by substantial evidence. It concluded that the dispute raised was not genuine and was a tactic to evade liability, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the Corporate Debtor had accepted and consumed the fuel without invoking any contractual remedies, and the counter-petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal lacked merit and was therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Pre-existing dispute regarding the quality and type of fuel supplied under the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA).
2. Compliance with the service of Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
3. Admission of liability by the Corporate Debtor.
4. Adjudicating Authority's handling of the counter-petition filed by the Corporate Debtor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Pre-existing Dispute Regarding Quality and Type of Fuel:
The Appellant contended that the Operational Creditor supplied Cotton Stalk instead of Cane Trash, violating the terms of the FSA. The Corporate Debtor highlighted that Cotton Stalk has a higher moisture content, resulting in lower calorific value, and demanded compensation for non-supply of Cane Trash. However, the Tribunal found this argument untenable, noting that the FSA allowed for the supply of various types of biomass fuel, including Cotton Stalk. The Corporate Debtor neither returned the fuel nor invoked the cancellation clause of the FSA, indicating acceptance of the supplied fuel. The Tribunal concluded that the dispute raised was a "patently feeble argument, unsupported by any substantial evidence."

2. Compliance with the Service of Demand Notice:
The Appellant argued that the Demand Notice dated 23.02.2018 was not received at the registered office address, thus non-compliant with Section 8 of the IBC. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Postal Department confirmed delivery of the Notice to "Shingvetukai BO," which is the location of the Corporate Debtor's registered office. The Tribunal found the Appellant's claim unsustainable and emphasized that the Demand Notice was duly served.

3. Admission of Liability by the Corporate Debtor:
The Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt in ledger confirmation letters dated 01.04.2016 and 01.05.2016. The invoices raised by the Operational Creditor from 01.06.2016 to 26.04.2016, amounting to Rs. 1,79,13,261/-, were acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor's subsequent legal notices were an afterthought to avoid liability, especially since the fuel was accepted and consumed without invoking any contractual remedies.

4. Adjudicating Authority's Handling of the Counter-Petition:
The Appellant criticized the Adjudicating Authority for not disposing of the counter-petition (C.P. No. 3741 of 2019) along with the Section 9 Petition. The Tribunal clarified that the counter-petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. It emphasized that the Appellant's liability was evident from the correspondences and ledger confirmations, and the dispute raised was not substantial enough to affect the outcome.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's arguments were unsupported by substantial evidence and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal applied the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 'Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Ltd.', emphasizing that the dispute raised was not genuine and was merely a tactic to evade liability. The appeal was found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.

---