Pre-existing dispute under insolvency law defeated section 9 admission; delay in refiling was also condoned.

Delay of 133 days in refiling the appeal was condoned because the explanation covered document access difficulties, the Covid period, management changes and earlier condonation in filing, and the proceedings had been running ex parte. The section 9 insolvency petition was not admitted because the record disclosed a plausible pre-existing dispute over dues, premises condition, utility restoration, security deposit adjustment and the impact of the licensor's CIRP. Applying the settled section 9 test, the Tribunal treated the defence as more than a mere moonshine dispute and sustained dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 133 days in refiling the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was liable to be admitted in view of the alleged pre-existing dispute.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 133 days in refiling the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay in refiling was explained by the appellant by reference to difficulties in obtaining documents, the effect of the Covid period, the appellant's insolvency-related changes in management, and the earlier condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The proceedings were also running ex parte against the respondent. In the circumstances, the delay in refiling was treated as sufficiently explained.

Conclusion: The delay of 133 days in refiling the appeal was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was liable to be admitted in view of the alleged pre-existing dispute.

Analysis: The leave and license arrangement between the parties was undisputed, but the record showed serious disputes regarding payment of dues, the condition and usability of the premises, restoration of utilities, police assistance, security deposit adjustment, and the effect of the corporate insolvency resolution process involving the licensor. Applying the settled section 9 framework, the existence of a pre-existing dispute need only be plausible and supported by material, and the Tribunal found that the disputes raised before the adjudicating authority were not a mere moonshine defence. On that basis, the finding of a pre-existing dispute in relation to liability for charges arising after the licensor entered CIRP was affirmed.

Conclusion: The section 9 petition was not liable to be admitted and the dismissal of the petition was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, while the ancillary delay issue in refiling was regularised; the rejection of the insolvency petition remained undisturbed.

---