Sadbhav Engineering Limited, Sadbhav House, Opp. Law Garden Police Chowki, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujrat 380 006. Email : [email protected] ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Mr. Biswajit Kumar, Mr. Indradeep Basu and Ms. Bhavya Khatreja, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Navin Pahwa Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Talwar, Mr. Nilay Gupta and Mr. Uday P., Advocates. ORDER (Hybrid Mode) [Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)] The present Appeal is filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") against the Impugned Order dated November 14, 2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Court2 ("Adjudicating Authority" or "AA") in CP (IB) No. 180 (AHM) of 2022 ("Petition"). The Petition filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the IBC against the Respondent / Corporate Debtor, Sadbhav Engineering Ltd was dismissed by the Impugned Order. Brief facts of the case 2. The Corporate Debtor was engaged by Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL) to carry out activities at Banduhurang Opencast Mines, Jamshedpur. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor issued a Work Order to the Operational Creditor for drilling operations at the site, initially for a year, and later extended until March 31, 2020. Despite reminders, the Corporate Debtor failed to release outstanding payments to the Operational Creditor and, instead, denied claims and making baseless allegations. The Operational Creditor had issued invoices covering the period from November, 2018, to February, 2020, which were received by the Corporate Debtor on May 5, 2021. The Corporate Debtor also endorsed balance confirmations to the Operational Creditor. Subsequently, the Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice under Section 8 of the IBC, which was duly received by the Corporate Debtor. With no resolution in sight, the Operational Creditor filed an Application under Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC before the AA [CP (IB) No. 180 (AHM) of 2022]. However, the AA dismissed the Application on the grounds of pre existing disputes between the parties. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 95 of 2025 2 of 14 Submissions made by the Appellant 3. The AA relied on totally irrelevant materials and considerations and, in doing so, acted in derogation of the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd vs Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd. (2017) SCC Online SC 1154 (Civil Appeal No. 9405/2017). 4. The purported stand taken by the Respondent in its communications dated March 2, 2020, and June 20, 2020, were patently feeble or unsupported by evidence or mere bluster. Communications issued by the Respondent were not "notice of dispute." Vague denials of liability by the Respondent were sham, moonshine and illusory. The purport and contents of the communications issued by the Respondent, including the letters dated March 2, 2020, and June 20, 2020 were misconstrued and misunderstood. 5. The AA has erred in mechanically citing the issuance of two letters issued by the Respondent prior to issuance of the Demand Notice. There is an admission of the Respondent made in its SurRejoinder Affidavit that would fully establish the genuineness of the Appellant's claim made in the Section 9 Petition. There were no preexisting disputes between the parties prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice on December 31, 2021, and the ingredients required for initiating CIRP in respect of the Respondent were fully and sufficiently proved and satisfied. The aforesaid communications don't contain any assertion that the work was not completed. Respondent's own admission