https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767805 NCLAT allowed appeal against admission of Section 9 application. Tribunal held that corporate debtor's reply dated 28.01.2020 to demand notice constituted valid notice of dispute under Section 9(5)(d). Pre-existing disputes existed prior to demand notice issuance, evidenced by correspondence between parties, legal notice dated 01.07.2019, and corporate debtor's reply dated 21.08.2019. Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting application despite clear pre-existing dispute, contrary to SC precedent in Mobilox Innovations case. Corporate debtor's defense was not moonshine. Section 9 application admission was improper. en-us Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767805 NCLAT allowed appeal against admission of Section 9 application. Tribunal held that corporate debtor's reply dated 28.01.2020 to demand notice constituted valid notice of dispute under Section 9(5)(d). Pre-existing disputes existed prior to demand notice issuance, evidenced by correspondence between parties, legal notice dated 01.07.2019, and corporate debtor's reply dated 21.08.2019. Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting application despite clear pre-existing dispute, contrary to SC precedent in Mobilox Innovations case. Corporate debtor's defense was not moonshine. Section 9 application admission was improper. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767805