<?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 failed where emails and cheques acknowledged liability; insolvency admission followed despite a section 10A objection.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100046</link>
    <description>Applying Mobilox, the NCLAT held that the alleged pre-existing dispute was not contemporaneous with the invoices and was unsupported by material showing a genuine dispute over the 2021 supplies. Emails acknowledging outstanding dues, requests for time, and post-dated cheques amounted to acknowledgment of liability, while the later reply to the Section 138 notice raised only a counter-claim about 2018 iPhone 8 inventory and Apple-related discount issues, not the operational debt in question. The Local Commissioner&#039;s report and later arbitration involving Apple were rejected as irrelevant. The defence was held to be a moonshine defence, so debt and default under section 9 stood proved. The section 10A objection also failed, and the Section 9 application was directed to be admitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Pre-existing dispute failed where emails and cheques acknowledged liability; insolvency admission followed despite a section 10A objection.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100046</link>
      <description>Applying Mobilox, the NCLAT held that the alleged pre-existing dispute was not contemporaneous with the invoices and was unsupported by material showing a genuine dispute over the 2021 supplies. Emails acknowledging outstanding dues, requests for time, and post-dated cheques amounted to acknowledgment of liability, while the later reply to the Section 138 notice raised only a counter-claim about 2018 iPhone 8 inventory and Apple-related discount issues, not the operational debt in question. The Local Commissioner&#039;s report and later arbitration involving Apple were rejected as irrelevant. The defence was held to be a moonshine defence, so debt and default under section 9 stood proved. The section 10A objection also failed, and the Section 9 application was directed to be admitted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>