https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791967 A section 9 application could not be rejected merely because invoices were not annexed with the demand notice where the minimum royalty obligation arose from the contract itself and debt was otherwise supported by the agreement and correspondence. Rule 5 permits a demand notice in Form 3 or a copy invoice in Form 4, so invoices were not mandatory in every case. The correspondence reflected acknowledgment of liability, leaving at most a reconciliation dispute on quantum and not a substantive pre-existing dispute. The claim was contractual, not a mere unliquidated damages claim, and operational debt and default were established. en-us Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791967 A section 9 application could not be rejected merely because invoices were not annexed with the demand notice where the minimum royalty obligation arose from the contract itself and debt was otherwise supported by the agreement and correspondence. Rule 5 permits a demand notice in Form 3 or a copy invoice in Form 4, so invoices were not mandatory in every case. The correspondence reflected acknowledgment of liability, leaving at most a reconciliation dispute on quantum and not a substantive pre-existing dispute. The claim was contractual, not a mere unliquidated damages claim, and operational debt and default were established. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791967