https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383556 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found not maintainable because a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice. The corporate debtor had raised objections over defects, unfinished work, debit notes, and adjustment of amounts, and the dispute had already been referred to arbitration, showing it was not an afterthought. The claim was also held barred by limitation because the alleged default arose from a final payment certificate dated 31.10.2014, while the demand notice was issued in 2017, and no satisfactory explanation for timeliness was provided. The insolvency petition was therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383556 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found not maintainable because a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the demand notice. The corporate debtor had raised objections over defects, unfinished work, debit notes, and adjustment of amounts, and the dispute had already been referred to arbitration, showing it was not an afterthought. The claim was also held barred by limitation because the alleged default arose from a final payment certificate dated 31.10.2014, while the demand notice was issued in 2017, and no satisfactory explanation for timeliness was provided. The insolvency petition was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383556