Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 7855
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SHRI BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS, DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, JJ
M/s. CORNISH ALUMINIUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/s. NEO NIKITA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
IB-28/ND/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Mr. Vivek Sethi, Ms. Kanika Balhara
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Gupta
The court reaffirmed that where a plausible pre-existing dispute is raised, an application under Section 9 of the IBC cannot be admitted.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 - Application under - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated for alleged default of Rs. 1,15,43,684.49/- by Operational Creditor against Corporate Debtor - Existence of pre-existing disputes raised by Corporate Debtor regarding inflated claims and forged documents - Application dismissed due to failure to satisfy Section 9 criteria. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Corporate Debtor's contention of unsubstantiated claims and forged signatures questioned - Claims inflated beyond threshold criteria established under Section 4 of the Code. (Paras 13, 22-24)
Facts of the case:
The Operational Creditor supplied scaffolding equipment to the Corporate Debtor as per a rental agreement. Disputes arose regarding unpaid invoices and alleged inflated calculation of amounts owed.
Findings of Court:
The court found a plausible pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor, which warranted the dismissal of the application.
Issues: The main question addressed was whether the alleged outstanding debt met the statutory threshold for admitting an application under Section 9 of the IBC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a plausible contention regarding a pre-existing dispute exists, the application under Section 9 is inadmissible regardless of the potential outcome of the contestation.
Result: The application is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed under ibc for cirp initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the nature of agreements and operational conduct leads to a claim of default. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. disputes over payment led to dishonored cheques and lack of response from corporate debtor. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. corporate debtor raises grounds for dismissal based on maintainability and pre-existing disputes. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
1. The present Application is filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by Cornish Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Operational Creditor’), against the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) against M/s Neo Nitika Projects Pvt Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’).
2. The Operational Creditor, i.e., M/s. Cornish Aluminum India Pvt. Ltd. (CIN: U52100DL2010PTC208292) is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Provision of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing vast range of scaffolding & shuttering equipment for industry and construction. The Registered Office of the Operational Creditor is at Shop No. 311, T/F. Plot No. 192, Mamaram East Plaza, Mayur Vihar, Phase - 3, New Delhi -110096.
3. The Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s. Neo Nikita Projects Pvt. Ltd. (CIN: U45200DL2009PTC186278) is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Provision of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the real estate and construction industry. The Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor is at PVT No. 206, H. No. 29G, Ward No. - 1, 1st Floor, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 110030.
Case of the Applicant/Operational Creditor
4. The Corporate Debtor approached the Applicant Company through its Director/Authorized Representative in requirement of scaffolding and shuttering equipment on hiring basis for construction purposes. The parties executed a Rental Agreement dated 11.04.2016 for supply of scaffolding materials on a hiring basis wherein the Corporate Debtor agreed that it would make full payment of agreed rents on time.
5. Accordingly, the Applicant Company supplied scaffolding materials to the Corporate Debtor at following project sites of the Corporate Debtor:
i. Neo Nitika Projects Private Limited, AJNARA, GH-08, Sector 79, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
ii. Neo Nitika Projects Private Limited, AMBROSSIA, Sector 118, Naida, Uttar Pradesh.
iii. Neo Nitika Projects Private Limited, COSMOS, GH-0lC, Sector 16, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
iv. Neo Nitika Projects Private Limited, MAHAGUN, Sector 16, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
v. Neo Nitika Projects Private Limited, SAMRIDHI LUXURIA, Sector 105, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
6. It is submitted that the Applicant Company raised invoices and demand notes for the scaffolding material and maintained separate ledger accounts for all the above-mentioned sites. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor started defaulting in making payments of amounts payable under respective invoices on their respective dates despite repeated requests and reminders. The conduct of the Corporate Debtor is totally unprofessional and contrary to the terms and conditions as enumerated in Rental Work Order dated 11.04.2016.
7. It is submitted that as on 23.08.2023, total outstanding amount is Rs. 1,15,43,684.49/- which has been calculated after deducting excluding invoices from period 25.03.2020 to 24.03.2021, i.e., suspended period due to Covid 19 Pandemic. Such debt fell due from the respondent concern excluding interest towards the services rendered to it by Operational Creditor. The details of the debt and the date from which such debt fell due is herein below:
(a) The total outstanding amount to be recovered qua AJNARA site including interest from the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 5,80,902/- which includes an amount of Rs. 5,47,677/- against invoices raised for the period 31.08.2016 to 01.11.201
