https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298465 The enhanced insolvency threshold of Rs. 1 crore did not bar the section 9 application because the relevant date for applying the threshold was the date of default, and the default here arose from 03.06.2017 onwards, leaving the petition maintainable for consideration. However, the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute on quality of goods and related payment issues, supported by emails, internal correspondence, and meeting minutes predating the demand notice. As a real dispute had already been raised before the notice, the Adjudicating Authority could not conduct a detailed factual inquiry or treat insolvency as a recovery forum, and CIRP was declined. en-us Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Nov 2021 02:01:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298465 The enhanced insolvency threshold of Rs. 1 crore did not bar the section 9 application because the relevant date for applying the threshold was the date of default, and the default here arose from 03.06.2017 onwards, leaving the petition maintainable for consideration. However, the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute on quality of goods and related payment issues, supported by emails, internal correspondence, and meeting minutes predating the demand notice. As a real dispute had already been raised before the notice, the Adjudicating Authority could not conduct a detailed factual inquiry or treat insolvency as a recovery forum, and CIRP was declined. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298465