Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.
A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.