https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783849 An operational creditor challenged rejection of its IBC s.9 application on the ground that no pre-existing dispute existed. Applying SC precedent in Mobilox, the AT held that the adjudicating authority must reject a s.9 application if there is a genuine dispute shown by a plausible contention requiring further investigation, and not a patently feeble or unsupported defence; here, written refutation prior to the demand notice and the reply to the demand notice constituted a "notice of dispute" under s.9(5)(ii)(d), and the creditor's prolonged silence on alleged salary dues supported the existence of dispute. The AT further held that alleged defaults from September 2020 to February 2021 were barred by IBC s.10A, and no admission beyond February 2021 was shown. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783849 An operational creditor challenged rejection of its IBC s.9 application on the ground that no pre-existing dispute existed. Applying SC precedent in Mobilox, the AT held that the adjudicating authority must reject a s.9 application if there is a genuine dispute shown by a plausible contention requiring further investigation, and not a patently feeble or unsupported defence; here, written refutation prior to the demand notice and the reply to the demand notice constituted a "notice of dispute" under s.9(5)(ii)(d), and the creditor's prolonged silence on alleged salary dues supported the existence of dispute. The AT further held that alleged defaults from September 2020 to February 2021 were barred by IBC s.10A, and no admission beyond February 2021 was shown. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783849