<?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 defeats insolvency petition where quality complaints and prior correspondence show a real dispute over supply</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99024</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency application was rejected because the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties. The corporate debtor had, before the demand notice, complained of defective consignments, including rusting and non-conformity with specifications, sought replacement, and rejected the goods; the operational creditor&#039;s own emails acknowledging quality deficiency and offering compensation reinforced that the dispute was real. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authority need only see whether the dispute is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not a patently feeble defence. It also held that issues on CFR INCOTERMS and Sale of Goods Act remedies were outside summary insolvency jurisdiction, and the rejection of the application was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Pre-existing dispute defeats insolvency petition where quality complaints and prior correspondence show a real dispute over supply</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99024</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency application was rejected because the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties. The corporate debtor had, before the demand notice, complained of defective consignments, including rusting and non-conformity with specifications, sought replacement, and rejected the goods; the operational creditor&#039;s own emails acknowledging quality deficiency and offering compensation reinforced that the dispute was real. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authority need only see whether the dispute is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not a patently feeble defence. It also held that issues on CFR INCOTERMS and Sale of Goods Act remedies were outside summary insolvency jurisdiction, and the rejection of the application was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>