<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Pre-existing dispute under insolvency law must relate to the debt claimed; later-raised supply objections and separate franchise disputes failed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98044</link>
    <description>A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Pre-existing dispute under insolvency law must relate to the debt claimed; later-raised supply objections and separate franchise disputes failed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98044</link>
      <description>A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>