Applying Mobilox, the NCLAT held that the alleged pre-existing...

Applying Mobilox, the NCLAT held that the alleged pre-existing dispute was not contemporaneous with the invoices and was unsupported by material showing a genuine dispute over the 2021 supplies. Emails acknowledging outstanding dues, requests for time, and post-dated cheques amounted to acknowledgment of liability, while the later reply to the Section 138 notice raised only a counter-claim about 2018 iPhone 8 inventory and Apple-related discount issues, not the operational debt in question. The Local Commissioner's report and later arbitration involving Apple were rejected as irrelevant. The defence was held to be a moonshine defence, so debt and default under section 9 stood proved. The section 10A objection also failed, and the Section 9 application was directed to be admitted.

---