Operational debt and pre-existing dispute test under insolvency law: valid notice and proved default sustained admission.

For admission under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the adjudicating authority must be satisfied that an operational debt is due and unpaid, the demand notice has been validly served, and no genuine pre-existing dispute exists. On the facts recorded, invoices, part-payments, acknowledgements of outstanding balance, and requests for time established default; dispatch to the corporate office and service on the director's e-mail satisfied notice requirements; and alleged defects in goods, raised only after notice, were treated as a belated and non-genuine defence. The Section 9 application was therefore maintainable and the admission order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an operational debt was due and payable and whether default was established so as to justify admission of the Section 9 application; (ii) Whether the demand notice under the insolvency framework was duly served on the corporate debtor; (iii) Whether any real and substantial pre-existing dispute existed to defeat initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.

Issue (i): Whether an operational debt was due and payable and whether default was established so as to justify admission of the Section 9 application.

Analysis: The written arrangement between the parties was treated as the basis of their commercial relationship, and invoices and payment communications showed that supplies had been made and part-payment had been received. The record also showed that the corporate debtor had acknowledged an outstanding balance and had sought time for payment. On the statutory test governing admission of an application under Section 9, the materials demonstrated a debt that had become due and remained unpaid.

Conclusion: The existence of operational debt and default was established in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand notice under the insolvency framework was duly served on the corporate debtor.

Analysis: Service was examined with reference to dispatch at the corporate office and to the e-mail ID of the director reflected in the corporate records. The delivery record supported service at the corporate office, and service on the director's e-mail was treated as valid under the applicable rules governing service of demand notice. The challenge to service was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The demand notice was duly served, and the objection of the appellant failed.

Issue (iii): Whether any real and substantial pre-existing dispute existed to defeat initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The alleged complaints regarding defective or sub-standard goods were not shown to have been raised before receipt of the demand notice. The alleged grievance was not supported by contemporaneous correspondence with the operational creditor and was treated as an afterthought. The materials instead indicated continued dealings and requests for further supply, which undermined the claim of a genuine dispute. Applying the settled standard, the asserted defence was held to be neither plausible nor pre-existing in the statutory sense.

Conclusion: No real pre-existing dispute was proved, and the Section 9 application was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The requirements for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process were satisfied, and the admission order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For admission under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the adjudicating authority must find an operational debt due and unpaid, valid service of demand notice, and absence of a genuine pre-existing dispute; a spurious or belated defence cannot defeat admission.

---