Pre-existing contractual dispute bars Section 9 insolvency relief where contemporaneous correspondence shows unresolved performance issues.

A Section 9 insolvency application must be rejected where the material shows a real and bona fide dispute existing before the statutory demand notice. Here, contemporaneous correspondence during execution of the works recorded complaints about delay, incomplete performance, defective workmanship, quantity discrepancies, liquidated damages, and statutory dues, while the applicant's own extension requests showed unresolved performance issues before notice. Interim certification of running account bills was not treated as a final admission of liability because the contract preserved final satisfaction, deductions for delay, and the employer's right to withhold payment. The insolvency application was therefore correctly dismissed as the dispute fell outside summary insolvency adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Section 9 application was liable to be rejected on the ground that a real and pre-existing dispute existed between the parties before issuance of the demand notice.

Analysis: The dispute was traced to contemporaneous correspondence throughout execution of the works, including repeated complaints regarding delay, incomplete performance, defective workmanship, quantity discrepancies, liquidated damages, and statutory dues. The Appellant's own requests for extension and subsequent communications showed that the work remained incomplete and issues remained unresolved before the Section 8 demand notice. Certification of running account bills was treated as interim and not as a final admission of liability, because the contract reserved final satisfaction, deductions for delay, and the employer's right to withhold payment. The record therefore showed a genuine dispute rooted in the contractual performance and not a belated or illusory defence.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was rightly rejected because a bona fide pre-existing dispute existed prior to the demand notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the dismissal of the insolvency application was upheld as the controversy was outside the limited scope of summary insolvency adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a real and bona fide dispute exists before issuance of the statutory demand notice, the Adjudicating Authority must reject a Section 9 application and cannot enter upon adjudication of the underlying contractual claims.

---