KLB Komaki Private Limited Having Address at: 10, First Floor, Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Central Delhi 110055 Email ID: [email protected] .... Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Mr. Arjun Cbhibbar, Advocates. For Respondent : Dr. Swaroop George, Mr. Abhinandan Jain, Mr. Sunil Roy, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Mr. Kartikey, Advocates. JUDGMENT (Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 09.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench IV) in C.P. (IB) No. 870/ND/2022. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Section 9 petition filed by the Appellant Operational Creditor. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the AppellantRuchira Green Earth Private Limited. 2. The brief factual matrix of the present case is that the Appellant Operational Creditor, namely, Ruchira Green Earth Pvt. Ltd. is an MSME which was having business transactions with the Corporate Debtor Respondent, namely KLB Komaki Pvt. Ltd. for supply of batteries. The Appellant had supplied batteries to the Respondent under purchase orders raised from time to time and issued invoices for payments. Inspite of alleged regular follow up by the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor started defaulting in making payments from August 2022. In view of unpaid invoices, the Appellant issued a Section 8 Demand Notice on 21.10.2022 on the Corporate Debtor. Since the Corporate Debtor did not reply to the Section 8 Demand Notice nor made the outstanding payments, the Appellant filed a Section 9 petition before the Adjudicating Authority on 30.11.2022 seeking initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The Section 9 application was dismissed on 09.06.2025 by the Adjudicating Authority. Assailing the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant. 3. Making his submissions, Shri Anand Chhibbar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously dismissed the Section 9 application by holding that there was a preexisting dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent. It was also submitted that the outstanding amount was a legally enforceable operational debt as it was supported by invoices, delivery confirmations and ledger entries. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in Naresh Choudhary Vs Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1102 of 2025 Page 2 of 17 Sterling Enamelled Wires Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 39 of 2023 to contend that the Section 9 petition deserves to be admitted as the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged that an outstanding amount was due and payable to the Operational Creditor and given an assurance to clear the said amount. The invoices which formed the basis of the Section 9 application was unrelated to the alleged preexisting disputes and pertained to an entirely separate set of invoices and transactions relating to supplies made between April to August 2022 which had never been disputed. By conflating unrelated transactions, the Corporate Debtor had fabricated a defence of preexisting dispute while in reality there was no dispute. It was contended that the alleged dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding the quality of battery supplied was not a genuine dispute but a moonshine dispute which is established by the fact that the Corporate Debtor even after raising complaints had placed a high value purchase order of Rs 6.32 Cr. on 09.08.2022. Further, the Adjudicating Authority wrongly relied on certain routine WhatsApp communications exchanged between two employees of both parties to hold