https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783852 The dominant issue was whether a "pre-existing dispute" existed so as to bar admission of a s.9 IBC application. Applying the SC test in Mobilox, the Tribunal held that the corporate debtor's reply to the s.8 demand notice raised a plausible contention requiring further investigation and was not a patently feeble defence, as it alleged performance-related issues following the departure of the key personnel through whom services were rendered and referred to continued dealings through another entity, supported by surrounding contractual material and payment history. Since s.9 proceedings cannot adjudicate contested contractual claims and the debt was not admitted, the notice of dispute was treated as valid under s.8(2), and rejection of the s.9 application was upheld; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783852 The dominant issue was whether a "pre-existing dispute" existed so as to bar admission of a s.9 IBC application. Applying the SC test in Mobilox, the Tribunal held that the corporate debtor's reply to the s.8 demand notice raised a plausible contention requiring further investigation and was not a patently feeble defence, as it alleged performance-related issues following the departure of the key personnel through whom services were rendered and referred to continued dealings through another entity, supported by surrounding contractual material and payment history. Since s.9 proceedings cannot adjudicate contested contractual claims and the debt was not admitted, the notice of dispute was treated as valid under s.8(2), and rejection of the s.9 application was upheld; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783852