Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 5067
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SHRI BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS, J, DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, T
M/s. DWARKESH TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
M/s. SARENS HEAVY LIFT INDIA PVT. LTD. – Respondent
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) | CP (IB) 210/2025
For the Operational Creditor: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey Sr. Adv., Mr. Yash Tayal, Mr. Sharubh Advs.
For the Corporate Debtor: Ms. Dibya Nishant, Ms. Khushbu Dwivedi, Mr. Pallav Mumar Advs.
The application under Section 9 was dismissed due to pre-existing disputes and the payment of the claimed amount, confirming the necessity for clear liability and absence of counterclaims in bankruptcy applications.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 - Operational Creditor's application for initiating CIRP dismissed due to pre-existing disputes regarding the outstanding debt, conflicting claims made by the Operational Creditor, and the principal amount being paid. (Paras 26, 36, 38)
(B) Admission of Application - Criteria for admitting an application under Section 9 involves verification of a clear demand, absence of genuine dispute, and acceptance of liability. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
The Operational Creditor filed a petition under Section 9, claiming an outstanding amount of ₹14,24,78,837.31. The Corporate Debtor contended that disputes existed prior to the demand notice and that most of the amounts claimed had been paid.
Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged pre-existing disputes that barred the admission of the application, emphasizing that even the alleged outstanding amounts had been settled.
Issues: The key issues addressed were the existence of genuine disputes and the admission of the application under Section 9 of the IBC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there were clear evidence and communications showing disputes prior to the demand notice and that the criteria for initiating CIRP were not met due to these disputes.
Result: The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application under section 9 initiated for outstanding debts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. corporate debtor disputes outstanding amounts and claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court analyzes communications and disputes between parties. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. application dismissed due to existing disputes and paid debts. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
ORDER:
PER: BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. This Application has been filed by M/s. Dwarkesh Transport Corporation, Operational Creditor, before this Adjudicating Authority, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” or “Code”) r/w 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 M/s. Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted/failed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 14,24,78,837.31/- (Fourteen Crores Twenty-Four Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Seven and Thirty-One Paise Only) including the interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPERATIONAL CREDITOR:
2. The Operational Creditor submitted that it has filed CP (IB) 210/2025 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor, and that as on 15.02.2025, an amount of ₹14,24,78,837.31 stood outstanding in its books of account as due and payable by the Corporate Debtor.
3. The Operational Creditor further submitted that a demand notice in Form 3 dated 17.02.2025 was issued under Section 8 of the Code and dispatched to the Corporate Debtor by email and courier, to which the Corporate Debtor did not issue any substantive reply.
4. The Operational Creditor submitted that the Corporate Debtor had, in its email dated 05.08.2024, admitted that a sum of ₹3,87,09,685.50 was outstanding and payable to the Operational Creditor. It was stated that thereafter the Corporate Debtor made part-payments of ₹61,89,290 on 28.08.2024, 04.09.2024 and 26.09.2024, reducing the outstanding balance to ₹3,25,20,395.50. The Operational Creditor contended that in addition, a further sum of ₹4,91,487.18 was admitted by the Corporate Debtor under purchase order dated 20.05.2024 and invoice dated 02.10.2024, bringing the total admitted dues to ₹3,30,11,882.68.
5. The Operational Creditor submitted that in the email dated 27.10.2024 the Corporate Debtor itself confirmed that an amount of about ₹2.8 Crores was payable, of which ₹1.65 Crores was immediately payable prior to demobilisation adjustment. It was further submitted that in November 2024 the Corporate Debtor again referred to outstanding dues and requested time for payment. The Operational Creditor contends that these communications constitute clear and unequivocal admissions of liability. Reliance is placed on Babu Rao Kodali v. Vajra IOT (P) Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 4482, wherein it was held that even part- payments by a Corporate Debtor constitute admission of debt.
6. The Operational Creditor submitted that there were no pre-existing disputes between the parties. It was contended that the emails relied upon by the Corporate Debtor between January and March 2024 were only operational communications concerning mobilisation, availability of trailers and equipment breakdowns, and did not relate to the invoices or liability to pay. The Operational Creditor submitted that the first time the Corporate Debtor raised any counterclaim was by communication dated 07.01.2025 alleging damages of ₹25 Crores, which is an afterthought and a moonshine defence. In this regard, reliance is placed on Surendra Sancheti v. Gospell Digital Technologies Co. Ltd. , 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1265; AP Coated Drums and Barrels Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh Dharmani , 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 549 and Pedersen C
