https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406958 The Tribunal rejected the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as a genuine dispute existed between the parties regarding the quality of goods supplied before the demand notice was issued. Citing the definition of "dispute" in the Code, the Tribunal emphasized the need to differentiate between a genuine dispute and a spurious defense. The respondent had raised specific details of the dispute prior to the demand notice, leading to the rejection of the application. The decision preserved the applicant's rights to pursue other legal avenues without prejudice. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:16:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406958 The Tribunal rejected the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as a genuine dispute existed between the parties regarding the quality of goods supplied before the demand notice was issued. Citing the definition of "dispute" in the Code, the Tribunal emphasized the need to differentiate between a genuine dispute and a spurious defense. The respondent had raised specific details of the dispute prior to the demand notice, leading to the rejection of the application. The decision preserved the applicant's rights to pursue other legal avenues without prejudice. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406958