NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

COURT-V, MUMBAI BENCH

206. IA/509/2025 C.P. (IB)/843(MB)2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Delta Iron and Steel Company Pvt Ltd Acting Through

Its Resolution Professional Mr. Mangesh V. Kekre

Vs

Turakhia Metal Forms Private Limited

U/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Order Delivered on 28.11.2025

CORAM:

SH. MOHAN PRASAD TIWARI SH. CHARANJEET SINGH GULATI

MEMBER (J) MEMBER (T)

Appearance through VC/Physical/Hybrid Mode:

For the Petitioner:

For the Respondent: Adv. Yakshay Chheda (VC)

________________________________________________________________

ORDER In this case the Company Petition 843 of 2023 was filed on 10.06.2023 and the present IA has been filed on 11.11.2024, seeking to place on record documents, invoices etc. in support of the Petition CP 843 of 2023.

IA/509/2025: This is the IA filed by the Petitioner in Company Petition 843 of

2023 with following prayers:

(i) “That, this application may be allowed and the documents

annexed — ANNEXURE A/1 — COLLY along with this application may kindly be taken on record in the captioned matter and may be considered for the final

hearing and disposal of the matter;

(ii) And any such further Orders be made and/or directions

be given as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper under the circumstances of the present case.”

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that before filing the Company Petition, the Petitioner was required to issue a demand notice in terms of provisions of Section 8 of the IBC and admittedly along with demand notice, no invoices which are pre-requisite to be attached with the demand notice were attached. He further submits that so much so, no invoice, primary documents establishing the debt has been placed on record in the original Petition and its only after they have filed their reply to the Company Petition 843 of 2023 that the Petitioner as an afterthought seeks to place such invoices/ documents on record which should not be accepted.

We have considered the facts of the case and submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In accordance with Section 8(1) an Operational Creditor on the occurrence of a default is required to deliver a demand notice of unpaid Operational Debt, copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the Corporate Debtor in such form and manner as are prescribed. Accordingly, it is imperative on behalf of the Operational Creditor to serve a copy of an invoice demanding payment of the unpaid Operational Debt, which in this case admittedly has not been done. The defense on the part of the Applicant that the Corporate Debtor has not responded to the demand notice issued under Section 8 does not come to aid the cause of the Applicant herein because such an action of responding or not responding is the prerogative of the Corporate Debtor. In the judgment of Hon’ble NCLAT in Neeraj Jain. vs Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Private Limited in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1354 of 2019, at Para 42 to 45 have observed as under:

42. However, if the operational debt is of nature where the invoice is generated as part of the transaction, then in such cases the invoice becomes an essential document to prove the existence of the debt, and thus it has to be submitted. In case of operational debt where the transaction does not involve the generation of the invoice, then as per column 7 of Form 3, documents to prove the existence of operational debt and the amount in default are to be submitted along with the notice in Form 3.

43. However, it cannot be the discretion of the Operational Creditor to deliver the Demand Notice in Form 3 even if the operational debt involves transactions where corresponding invoices are generated but are not filed in court on the pretext that the Operational Creditor has chosen to send the Notice in Form 3.

44. The use of the phrase, ‘deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debt or copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved’ in Section 8