Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 720
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
KHETRABASI BISWAL, Judicial Member, SHISHIR AGARWAL, Technical Member
Sunil Makkar – Appellant
Versus
GLOBALWASH CREATION PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CP (IB) No. 223/Chd/Hry/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Asav Rajan
For the Respondents: Gautam Malik
Pre-existing dispute evidenced by emails and Information Utility record bars admission of Section 9 IBC application.
Headnote:Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the operational creditor sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor for unpaid operational debt of Rs. 1,42,77,887 arising from job work services for manufacturing jeans provided between January and June 2023. The court found evidence of pre-existing dispute through emails dated 13.01.2024 and 28.03.2024 highlighting ledger discrepancies and incomplete work, prior to demand notices. The primary issue framed was whether a pre-existing dispute exists under Section 5(6) IBC. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that plausible contentions of dispute, supported by email correspondence and Information Utility record marking debt as 'DISPUTED', bar admission under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) IBC, distinguishing from spurious defences per Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. The Section 9 application was rejected due to pre-existing dispute and disputed record in Information Utility.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. operational creditor claims unpaid job work debt under ibc s.9. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. corporate debtor raises pre-existing dispute on quality and payments. (Para 3) |
| 3. rejoinder asserts chronological payment appropriation, denies sham dispute. (Para 4) |
| 4. pre-existing dispute via emails and iu record bars cirp admission. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. section 9 application dismissed due to dispute. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGEMENT
The instant Application has been filed by Mr. Sunil Makkar, the sole proprietor of Sonu Garment (Operational Creditor/Applicant) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” or “IBC”) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIRP’) against Globalwash Creations Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Debtor/Respondent) owing to unpaid operational debt of Rs. 1,42,77,887.
2. The averments made by the Operational Creditor/Applicant in its Application and as argued by the learned counsel are summarised as under:
(i) The Operational Creditor is engaged in the business of providing comprehensive job work services for manufacturing jeans/denims like use of machinery, provision of space/factory, and supplying skilled labour. The Corporate Debtor is a private company engaged in the business of manufacturing denims.
(ii) It is submitted by the Applicant that the Corporate Debtor in early 2022 approached the Operational Creditor for the purpose of availing end to end job work services for manufacturing jeans at Plot No.- E-3, Sector-A-2, Trans Delhi Signature City, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201102 which are the premises of the Operational Creditor. It is mentioned that the Corporate Debtor was also operating from the said premises. Pursuant to interest shown by the Corporate Debtor to grow its business, the Operational Creditor started providing services to the Corporate Debtor.
(iii) The Applicant submitted that initially, in the months of April and May, 2022 the Operational Creditor provided services to the Corporate Debtor for an assignment by the name of “Chahat” for which timely invoices were raised on 17.06.2022 (Tax Invoice No. 037 to 045) and an on-account payment was made by the Corporate Debtor for the said account until 28.04.2023. Invoices for a total amount of Rs.13,07,472 were raised and in repayment on account of Chahat, Rs.10,00,000 was made on 13.03.2023 and Rs.3,00,000 was made on 28.04.2023.
(iv) The Applicant further submitted that during the period of April and May, 2022 the Corporate Debtor requested working capital assistance for the purpose of purchasing cloth to manufacture jeans. In pursuance of the same, the Operational Creditor on 25.04.2022, 28.04.2022 and 26.05.2022 provided working capital assistance of Rs.41,00,000 through its Kotak Mahindra Bank account. The amount mentioned does not form part of the Operational Debt being claimed in default in the present petition.
(v) It is submitted that the second set of transactions between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor took place during August, 2022 to December, 2022 under the name of “Tronica” for a total amount of Rs.1,51,26,467. The Corporate Debtor starting August, 2022 made on-account payments in discharge of the said obligation and no amounts are due as of today for the said account. The Corporate Debtor for the said transaction raised invoices which have been paid by the Corporate Debtor by making on account payments until 19.01.2023 when an amount of Rs. 3,64,504 was paid.
(vi) It is further submitted that the dues as claimed by the Operational Creditor in the present Application arise from the third set of transactions between January, 2023 and June, 2023 for a total of 31 invoices raised from 04.01.2023 to 04.05.2023 (“said Invoices”). It is evident from the said set of invoices that the
