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

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 131

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR, President, SANJAY PURI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Vattam Mahesh Kumar HUF – Appellant
Versus
Janapriya Nirmaan Conglomerate Private Limited – Respondent
Company Petition IB/236/9/HDB/2024



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Mr. Srikanth Rathi
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Akhileswar

Section 9 petition maintainability determined by specific default in Section 8 demand notice; payments extinguishing debt qua listed invoices preclude admission, regardless of FIFO claims for broader balances.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 3(12), 4, 5(6), 8, 9 and 9(5)(i) read with Rule 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 9 petition by operational creditor for supply of goods - Demand notice under Section 8 specified ten invoices with claimed shortfall - Corporate debtor made payments pre- and post-demand notice fully covering shortfall qua specified invoices - No subsisting default qua debt asserted in demand notice on filing date - FIFO appropriation of payments to earlier invoices cannot enlarge claim beyond specific cause of action crystallized in demand notice - Attempt to sustain larger claim via running account balances not amenable to summary determination at admission stage - Petition dismissed as no default qua Section 8 demand notice. (Paras 37-44)

(B) Insolvency proceedings - Admission stage - Scope limited to verifying operational debt, default above threshold, Section 8/9 compliance, absence of pre-existing dispute, and limitation - Cannot adjudicate complex appropriation disputes or alternative accounting methods - Specific invoices in demand notice govern; payments extinguishing those preclude admission. (Paras 35, 39-40)

Facts of the case:
Operational creditor filed Section 9 application claiming default of Rs. 2,00,74,056/- (principal, interest, GST) for steel supplies. Demand notice relied on ten invoices (21.02.2024 to 24.05.2024) with shortfall. Corporate debtor disputed quality of steel supplied under two invoices, claimed payments of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- pre-notice and Rs. 17,26,770/- post-notice fully discharged specified invoices; raised pre-existing quality dispute halting construction.

Findings of Court:
No subsisting default qua ten invoices in demand notice as payments fully extinguished claimed shortfall; FIFO re-appropriation to older invoices impermissible to sustain petition.

Issues: Whether default existed qua specific debt/default in Section 8 demand notice; whether payments fully discharged specified invoices precluding admission; impact of FIFO method and alleged pre-existing quality dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Maintainability of Section 9 application tied to specific debt/default in demand notice; payments covering those invoices extinguish default even if larger running balance claimed via FIFO; admission not mechanical, requires clear default qua pleaded cause of action. (Paras 39-43)

Result: Company Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. parties and jurisdictional facts established (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. operational creditor's supply, default, and acknowledgments (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. oc asserts admitted debt, no pre-existing dispute, fifo adjustment (Para 14 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. cd claims pre-existing quality dispute, full payment of invoiced amounts (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. demand notice debt fully discharged, fifo inapplicable at admission (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. no subsisting default; petition dismissed (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

O R D E R

1. The present application has been filed by Vattam Mahesh Kumar HUF (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”/“Operational Creditor”/“OC”) on 04.12.2024, u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), r/w Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (“AA Rules”), for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), declaring moratorium and for appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”), against Janapriya Nirmaan Conglomerate Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent/Corporate Debtor”/“CD”) for default of Rs. 2,00,74,056/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy-four Thousand Fifty-six only).

PARTIES:

2. The “Operational Creditor” herein is a proprietorship concern under the name ‘Vattam Mahesh Kumar HUF (Through Karta Vattam Mahesh),’ having its office at 8/13/92/2/B/2, near Janata Service Station, Hasart Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500064. The Operational Creditor is represented through its Karta/Proprietor, Mr. Vattam Mahesh.

3. The Corporate Debtor herein is Janapriya Nirmaan Conglomerate Private Limited, represented by its authorized representative, Mr. Srinivas, having its registered office at Plot No. 34, Road No. 8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500034. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 31/05/2022 with a Paid-Up Capital of Rs. 3,95,62,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Ninety-Five Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand Only) and an Authorised Capital of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-(Rupees Four Crore Only).

4. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor being within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, this Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the present application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

THE APPLICATION:

5. The Operational Creditor has stated to have entered into a commercial arrangement with the Corporate Debtor for the supply of steel materials, including TMT bars and related products, in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to multiple purchase orders 1, Copies of Purchase Orders at pages 24 to 39 of the Application placed from time to time, the Operational Creditor supplied the goods and raised corresponding tax invoices 2, Copies of Tax Invoices at pages 40 to 59 of the Application which were duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor.

6. Initially, it is claimed that, the Corporate Debtor made payments in the usual course of business; however, from the year 2022 onwards, it began defaulting in clearing invoices within the agreed timelines.

7. According to the applicant the total sales made by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor between April 2023 and May 2024 amounted to Rs. 6,19,27,114/-, out of which the Corporate Debtor paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 4,37,00,344/-, leaving an outstanding principal balance of Rs. 1,82,26,770/-. As on 10.09.2024, the total amount outstanding and due from the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor was Rs. 2,00,74,056/-, comprising a principal amount of Rs. 1,82,26,770/-, interest calculated at 24% per annum (up to 24.05.2024) amounting to Rs. 15,65,496/-, and GST on interest aggregating to Rs. 2,81,789/-. Interest continues to accrue until the date of actual payment 3, Copy of the interest computation is at page 60 of the Applicat

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