Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 2
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Judicial Member
Belgotex India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Puneet India Private Limited – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1445 of 2024|Company Petition No. (IB)-236(ND)/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumesh Dhawan, Vatsala Kak, Sagar Thakkar, Khyati Khemka
For the Respondents: Manorjun Sharma, Shweta, Najreena Sheikh
Erroneous application of uniform 90-day credit to invoices violated agreement terms; corrected debt exceeded Section 10A threshold, no pre-existing dispute.
Headnote:Under Sections 8, 9, and 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the operational creditor supplied goods under a distribution agreement with specified credit periods of 40 days for Indian warehouse dispatches and 90 days for imports. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 9 petition, erroneously applying 90-day periods to all invoices, deeming part of the debt excluded under Section 10A, and citing pre-existing disputes and amount inconsistencies. The Appellate Tribunal found miscalculation of default dates and debt exceeding the threshold. Key issues included whether invoice defaults fell within Section 10A's exclusion period, existence of pre-existing disputes prior to demand notice, and validity of debt amount variations. The Tribunal held that most invoices attracted 40-day credit, placing defaults outside Section 10A; tripartite agreement post-default acknowledged debt, not disputed it; post-notice email irrelevant; and amount adjustments for post-notice payments and interest permissible if threshold met. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after hearing parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of supply agreement, invoices, payments, and notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appellant's challenge to section 10a exclusion and disputes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. respondent's defence on threshold and prior disputes. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. tribunal corrects credit periods and section 10a computation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. no pre-existing dispute; post-default agreement acknowledges debt. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. amount mismatch justified by post-notice adjustments. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 7. appeal allowed; remanded for fresh hearing. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]
1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- Belgotex India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) assailing the order dated 17.05.2024, (impugned order) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi whereby the petition filed by the appellant being CP (IB) No. 236 of 2021 under Section 9 of the Code has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the operational creditor is engaged in the business of floor coverings such as nylon and polypropylene modular carpet tiles and planks, carpet rolls etc. and in order to run its business effectively, the operational creditor appoints dealers and distributors.
3. It is reflected that the Corporate Debtor (CD) and Appellant entered into a dealership/distribution agreement dated 15.10.2019, whereby the CD/Respondent was appointed as the authorised dealer/distributor of the operational creditor on an exclusive basis for Delhi-NCR Region for a period of three years. As per the terms of the agreement the CD was required to clear the invoices drawn by the Operational Creditor as per the credit period as mentioned in the purchase order. However, it was specifically provided in the agreement that in no case the credit period shall exceed 40 days from the date of dispatch of goods made from Indian Warehouse and in case of dispatch of goods being made post import of the products from outside India which shall not exceed 90 days from the date of bill of lading (BOL).
4. It is further reflected that the CD issued several purchase orders to the operational creditor and also made requisites payment against the goods purchased by it.
5. The case of the operational creditor is that several invoices were raised by it for the payment of the amount pertaining to the goods supplied to the CD and out of the total outstanding amount of Rs. 2,41,30,811/- the CD has only made a payment of Rs. 95,71,865/- and thus a sum of Rs. 1,45,58,946/- remains due and payable by the CD/Respondent to the Operational Creditor/Appellant.
6. It is further the case of the appellant that in view of the outstanding liability towards the operational creditor the CD issued 4 cheques to operational creditor however all these cheques were dishonoured as there was in sufficient funds in the bank account of the CD and in this regard operational creditor issued demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the CD on 30.04.2020 and 05.05.2020.
7. It is also the case of the appellant that as the payment was not made by the CD a notice under Section 8 of the Code was served on the CD on 08.05.2020 however despite duly served the CD neither replied the notice nor has repaid the debt and consequently, a petition under Section 9 of the Code was filed by the appellant before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority which has been dismissed by passing the impugned order.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts, and record and contention of the appellant were not discussed in right perspective and Section 9 petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that an amount of Rs. 53,86,399/- w
