SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1457

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, JJ
REDINGTON LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
PRIMATEL FIBCOM LIMITED – Respondent
CP (IB)-23(ND)/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Geetanjali Setia
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Ms. Akshita Nigam

An application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is barred under Section 10A of the IBC for defaults occurring during a specified period, especially when a pre-existing dispute exists between the parties.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 and Section 10A - Operational Creditor filed application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor for non-payment of dues totaling ₹2,71,50,631.52 - Application dismissed due to statutory bar under Section 10A for defaults occurring during the specified period and existence of pre-existing dispute. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Pre-existing Dispute - The Corporate Debtor raised objections regarding non-performance and lack of acknowledgment of work by the end-user, indicating a genuine dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice. (Paras 8, 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, Redington Limited, sought to initiate CIRP against Primatel Fibcom Limited due to non-payment for services rendered, with a total outstanding amount claimed. The Corporate Debtor contended that the application was barred under Section 10A and claimed a pre-existing dispute regarding the performance of work.

Findings of Court:
The application was found to be barred under Section 10A of the IBC and the existence of a pre-existing dispute warranted dismissal of the application.

Issues: Whether the application is maintainable given the statutory bar under Section 10A and the existence of a pre-existing dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application cannot proceed due to the statutory prohibition on filing for defaults during the specified period and the presence of a genuine dispute between the parties as established by prior communications.

Result: The Application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application filed under ibc for cirp initiation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's claims regarding invoices and payments. (Para 3 , 4)
3. existence of statutory bar and pre-existing dispute. (Para 5)

ORDER

PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. This Application has been filed by Redington Limited, the Applicant/Operational Creditor (“OC”) before this Adjudicating Authority, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” or “Code”) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, (“Adjudicating Authority Rules”), for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), declaring moratorium and for appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”), against Primatel Fibcom Limited, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor (“CD”) on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in paying for the services rendered by the Applicant which has accumulated to a total outstanding amount of ₹ 2,71,50,631.52/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy One Lakh Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Thirty One and Fifty Two Paisa Only) inclusive of Principal amount of Rs. 1,59,25,280.00/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty) and interest @24% p.a. from the date of acceptance of invoice (i.e. 19.11.2020) till 27.10.2023 (i.e. date of demand notice).

2. The Corporate Debtor herein Primatel Fibcom Limited having CIN U74899DL1995PLC066700, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 is having its registered office at G-71, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi 110001, India. Since the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated in New Delhi, this Tribunal having jurisdiction over the NCT of Delhi is the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Code in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.

3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT/OPERATIONAL CREDITOR:

i. It is the case of the Applicant/Operational Creditor that BSNL floated a tender on 24.01.2017 for “Supply, installation, Commissioning, Operation and Maintenance of BNG and associated subscriber Policy Manager & Authentication platform.

ii. The principal contractor (ITI Ltd.), Corporate Debtor and Juniper Networks International B.V agreed to execute the said work jointly and thus entered 2 into a Teaming Agreement dated 05.10.2017. As per the terms of the agreement, Juniper Networks used to supply the support services through their authorized distributor (Operational Creditor) and thus, the OC was roped into the chain of Operation of execution of the subject job awarded by BSNL.

The Applicant/OC further emphasized that although the OC was part of the chain of operations, they were not a party to the Teaming Agreement.

iii. Thus, the CD approached the OC and expressed their need for the appointment of a Resident Engineer and Resident Consultant (RE/RC) to supervise the professional services in the BNG project. During the service period, the CD would place purchase orders on the OC who in turn would place the same on Juniper, whereas Juniper after performing their services to the End User (BSNL), CD being the teaming partner of Juniper would obtain milestone completion certificate from the End user through ITI. As such, the CD upon verification would release the payment to OC, who in turn paid Juniper on the completed work.

iv. As such, the CD issued three POs to the OC being the authorized distributor of Juniper, one of them being Purchase Order No. PTL/NOS/18-19/0042 dated 16.07.2018 for Professional Services. Thereafter, the Operational Creditor obtained the sales quotations from Juniper for the Professional and Educational services to be rendered and thereafter issued Purchase Orders to Juniper.

v. Thereafter the Operational Creditor raised the following invoices:

vi. On receiving the aforesaid invoices, the Corporate Debtor vide a letter dated 19.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top