Application Dismissed Due to Pre-Existing Dispute, Demand Notice Countered by Corporate Debtor, Appeal Rejected.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's Section 9 application, citing a pre-existing dispute between the parties, as supported by the "Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited" judgment. The Appellant's challenge to this rejection was dismissed, as the Authority found that the Demand Notice was adequately countered by the Corporate Debtor, who highlighted technical issues on the Appellant's part. The Authority upheld the existence of a valid pre-existing dispute, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of a Section 9 application by the Adjudicating Authority due to a pre-existing dispute between the parties, as per the agreement terms and subsequent communications.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Issue 1 - Rejection of Section 9 Application:
The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 claiming a specific amount, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority citing a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Authority relied on the judgment in "Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited."

2. Issue 2 - Challenge to the Order:
The Appellant challenged the rejection order, arguing that payments were to be made on a stage basis as per the agreement, and there was no fault on their part in providing designs. Despite a reply to the Demand Notice, a Rejoinder was filed in the Section 9 application to explain all issues.

3. Discussion and Decision:
Upon considering the submissions and records, it was noted that the Demand Notice was promptly replied to, refuting the Appellant's claim. The reply highlighted technical issues at the Appellant's end causing delays in work completion, leading to a request for a refund. The Adjudicating Authority found no error in rejecting the Section 9 application due to the pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor.

4. Conclusion:
The Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the Section 9 application based on the existence of a dispute prior to the Demand Notice was upheld. The Appeal was dismissed as the pre-existing dispute was deemed valid and supported by the material presented in the case.

---