TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in view of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
Analysis: The applicant sought initiation of CIRP on the basis of unpaid consultancy invoices. The corporate debtor produced material showing that the parties were already in dispute regarding alleged deficiency in services, non-delivery and delay in drawings, and related counterclaims before the demand notice. The record indicated that the later invoices remained unpaid when the dispute had already arisen, and the correspondence annexed by the corporate debtor supported the existence of such dispute. In these circumstances, the application could not be used as a debt recovery device for disputed claims.
Conclusion: The Section 9 application was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected because a pre-existing dispute existed prior to the demand notice.
Final Conclusion: The insolvency petition failed at the threshold since the admitted materials established a prior dispute between the parties, barring admission of CIRP.
Ratio Decidendi: A Section 9 insolvency application is not maintainable where a genuine pre-existing dispute, supported by material on record, existed before issuance of the demand notice.
TaxTMI 
