.J U D G M E N T

(25th May, 2026)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1.This Appeal by a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has been filed challenging the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, Court VI in Company Petition (IB) No.669 of 2025 admitting Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor Respondent No.1 herein. Aggrieved by the order, this Appeal has been filed. On 12.05.2026, we have passed an interim order that IRP shall not take any steps in pursuance of the impugned order.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:-

2.1. The Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor had a long- standing commercial relationship. The Corporate Debtor issued multiple purchase orders to the Operational Creditor for supply of automobile-grade adhesive products for two-wheelers between February 2025 to April 2025. Operational Creditor supplied goods and raised invoices aggregating to Rs.9,74,86,143/-. The Operational Creditor sent an e-mail on 21.04.2025 alleging overdue payments. Corporate Debtor on 22.04.2025 released a payment of Rs.3,10,73,278/-. Operational Creditor instead of resuming supply, demanded a further sum of Rs.2,38,00,000/- before any supplies could be made. On 16.05.2025, the Operational Creditor responded with commercially unreasonable conditions for resuming supplies. On 19.06.2025, Corporate Debtor communicated to the Operational Creditor that there are pre-existing disputes between the parties. On 20.06.2025, the Operational Creditor issued a demand notice under Section 8 claiming an operational debt of Rs.9,74,86,143/-. On 30.06.2025, the Corporate Debtor sent reply to the demand notice disputing the claim and communicating the pre-existing dispute between the parties and breach of confidential information. The reply to demand notice also stated that the Corporate Debtor had suffered losses of Rs.35 Crores. On 02.07.2025, the Operational Creditor filed CP (IB) No.669 (MB) of 2025 under Section 9. On 11.07.2025, the Corporate Debtor filed a Commercial Suit No.91 of 2025 before the High Court of Bombay praying for a decree of Rs.25,42,78,096/-. The Adjudicating Authority issued notice to the Corporate Debtor and directed the Operational Creditor to file the NeSL record of default. On 24.07.2025, the Operational Creditor caused a communication to be issued through NeSL demanding amount of Rs.9,74,86,143/- within 10 days. The Corporate Debtor raised a dispute on the NeSL Information Utility portal in respect of the alleged debt. The authenticated status on the NeSL portal was marked as ‘disputed’. Corporate Debtor filed reply to Section 9 application. Operational Creditor filed rejoinder. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order admitted Section 9 application.

3. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Arun Kathpalia, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that before issuance of demand notice, e-mail dated 19.06.2025 was sent by the Corporate Debtor which clearly informed about the pre-existing dispute between the parties. Demand notice issued thereafter was replied by reply notice which was notice of dispute within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9. There being notice of dispute issued by Corporate Debtor, Section 9 application could not have been admitted. It is further submitted that in the NeSL record of information, the status was authenticated as disputed. Status in the information utility record being disputed, Section 9 application could not have been admitted. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, submitted that although the Appellant has discharged the disputed debt of the corporate debtor but the Appellant is challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on merits, Section 9 application being not maintainable.

5. Shri Arun Kathpalia, Learned Senior Counsel for the