Tribunal declines to adjudicate on MSME interest claims; jurisdiction lies with MSEFC.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU

[Through Physical hearing/VC Mode (Hybrid)]

ITEM No.48

CP No.58/BB/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Electrify Power Solutions LLP … Petitioner

Vs

Southern Projects India Pvt Ltd … Respondent

Order under Section 221 of Companies Act, 2013

Order delivered on: 27.06.2025

CORAM:

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL

HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SHRI. RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA

HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

PRESENT:

For the Petitioner : Shri Mohit Kumar PCS

For Respondent : Ms. Apoorva

ORDER

1. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents.

2. C.P is dismissed by separate order.

3. File be sent to records.

-Sd- -Sd-

RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Gy

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU (Hearing conducted through Hybrid mode)

C.P.No.58/BB/2024 Under Section 221 of the Companies Act, 2013 read With Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF:

Electrify Power Solutions LLP Anjanapura Post, Bengaluru South Bengaluru – 560062 --- Petitioner Versus Southern Projects India Private Limited, No.871 and 872, 18^th Main Roads, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560010 - Respondent Order delivered on: 27.06.2025 Coram

1. Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Member (Judicial)

2. Hon’ble Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada, Member (Technical)

PRESENT:

For the Petitioner : Shri Mohit Kumar For Respondent : Ms. Apoorva

ORDER

PER: RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA, Member (Technical)

1. This application is filed by Electrify Power Solutions LLP, under Section

221 of the Companies Act, read with under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Rules, 2016 seeking the following reliefs:

2. FACTS OF THE CASE The relevant facts of the case as mentioned in the application are as under:

a) The Respondent Company had approached the Petitioner around June 2022, seeking to procure various materials for BMRCL Utility Shifting works. The supplies were made in pursuance of purchase orders by the Respondent Company from time to time. The supply relating to two of the Purchase orders bearing Nos. SPIPL/22- 23/BMRCL-23 dated 06.07.2022 (to be paid within 90 days of delivery of materials) and SPIPL/PO/PFPH/124 dated 9.01.2023 (to be paid within 30 days of delivery of materials) remain unpaid as on date of this petition. The delivery schedule, payment schedule, GST applicable and other terms and conditions of the supply.

b) The Petitioner supplied the materials as per the POs and the same were accepted and the delivery was acknowledged by the Respondent without any dispute. At the time of delivery, the Petitioner raised invoices as per the terms of the POs. As on date, three invoices remain unpaid as follows:

c) The terms of the Purchase Orders clearly stipulate that the invoice no. EPS22-23/0070 date 06.10.2022 shall be paid within 90 days and the invoices nos. EPS22-23/0139 dated 19.01.2023 and EPS22- 23/0176 dated 17.02.2023 shall be paid within 30 days. The invoice no. EPS22-23/0070 was paid partially and the remaining two invoices unpaid as on date.

d) The Petitioner being a genuine creditor and business entity, has also paid GST on the above supplies even when the payment of the same have not been received for more than one year. The Petitioner through emails, calls and WhatsApp messages, consistently followed up with the Respondent Company for payment of outstanding dues, but the representatives of the Respondent Company wilfully kept avoiding the payment by false assurances to gain more time in order to avoid the payment of outstanding dues completely. The Respondent Company never provided a genuine reason for the delay which can safely be assumed to be a conscious effort to avoid payment to the Petitioner, which is a bona-fide creditor/supplier of goods.

e) The Respondent has till date, never raised, a dispute regarding the quality of materials supplied or the services of the Petitioner. The Respondent has, on several occasions, confirmed the over debt. An overdue payment confirmation was also issued by