Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2695

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
VH Roofing Solutions – Appellant
Versus
CCTEB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
C.P. (IB) - 82/2025

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Rohan Gupta
For the Respondent:Kalyan Jhabakh

An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not maintainable when a pre-existing, genuine dispute regarding work execution, quality, or payment is evidenced by contemporaneous documents.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Existence of pre-existing dispute - An application under Section 9 is not maintainable when there is a genuine and bona fide dispute between the parties regarding execution of work, quality, measurements, and payment entitlement, which is supported by contemporaneous documents and correspondence predating the issuance of the demand notice.

(B) Pre-existing dispute - The material placed on record must be examined to determine the existence of a dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice. Correspondence including emails regarding reduction in scope of work, material supply and non-utilisation, assertions that payments exceeded contract value, inspection records highlighting defects, and communications regarding disputes over execution and payments will evidence a pre-existing dispute. (Paras 7, 9 and 11)

(C) The existence of a dispute is to be determined based on substantive issues concerning execution and completion of works, quality of workmanship, scope of work, measurements, rectification of defects, and entitlement to payments, and not merely on accounting or reconciliation of dues. (Para 9)

(D) MSME Form-I disclosures and ledger entries relied upon by an Operational Creditor to establish admission of liability can be disputed as provisional and subject to reconciliation, indicating that liability itself is not admitted and remains contested. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The Operational Creditor, a sole proprietorship, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for an alleged default amount of Rs. 8,25,59,616.77/-. The Operational Creditor claimed it had executed works under two contracts. The Corporate Debtor disputed the claim, asserting that payments were to be based on actual measurements, works were incomplete and defective, a pre-existing dispute existed, and the demand notice was defective.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the material on record, including contemporaneous correspondence and inspection reports predating the demand notice, evidenced a genuine and bona fide dispute between the parties regarding execution of work, quality, measurements, and payment entitlement. The dispute was not spurious or illusory.

Issues: The main issue was whether there existed a pre-existing dispute prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code, which would disentitle the Operational Creditor from invoking Section 9.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existence of a pre-existing dispute supported by contemporaneous documents and correspondence renders an application under Section 9 of the Code not maintainable. Result : Company Petition rejected and disposed of.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and parties' submissions (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. corporate debtor's reply and objections (Para 3)
3. court's analysis of evidence and disputes (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. existence of genuine pre-existing dispute (Para 11)
5. petition dismissed due to pre-existing dispute (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER

1. The present Application has been filed by Smt. Anisha Satish Sahitya Proprietor of VH Roofing Solutions (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant/Operational Creditor”) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) for seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against CCTEB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent/Corporate Debtor”), for the default amount of an Rs. 8,25,59,616.77/- (Eight crore twenty-five lakh fifty-nine thousand six hundred sixteen rupees and seventy-seven paise only.). The date of default, as mentioned in the Application is 10.01.2025.

2. The averments as made in the application and narrated by Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant are summarised hereunder;

(i) The Operational Creditor is a sole proprietorship firm under the name and style of VH Roofing Solutions and is engaged in the business of providing services such as roofing systems, installation of prefabricated/pre-engineered buildings, structural decking and other metal building accessories.

(ii) The Operational Creditor is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bearing registration no. 36ALSPS8967P1Z1 and is also registered as a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India vide UDYAM Registration No. TS-02-0084841 under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

(iii) The Corporate Debtor was engaged as a principal contractor by TTE Electronics India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TTEEIPL”) for carrying out construction and development works of a plant/factory and building at Vikuthamala Village, Yeapedu Mandal, Tirupati Sub-Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

(iv) The Corporate Debtor, in turn, engaged several sub-contractors for execution of various works. On 30.12.2021, TTEEIPL issued a certificate of principal employer acknowledging the Operational Creditor as a sub-contractor engaged by the Corporate Debtor.

(v) The Corporate Debtor awarded a construction works contract to the Operational Creditor bearing No. CCTEB/TCL/PEB/2021-04 dated 26.07.2021 for a contract value of Rs. 56,50,82,662.75/- (inclusive of taxes), which was subsequently supplemented vide supplementary agreement dated 06.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Works Contract-1”) for installation of roof and wall sandwich panel works at the project site.

(vi) The Corporate Debtor also awarded another works contract bearing No. CCTEB/TCL/PEB/2021-05 dated 30.10.2021 for a contract value of Rs. 5,56,22,840/-, supplemented vide agreement dated 06.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Works Contract-2”) for installation of TPO roofing and Rockwool works at the same site.

(vii) As per the terms of Works Contract-1 and Works Contract-2 (collectively referred to as “Works Contracts”), and in accordance with the directions issued by the Corporate Debtor from time to time, the Operational Creditor carried out and completed the contractual works to the satisfaction of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor acknowledged execution of the works as well as receipt of completion documentation submitted by the Operational Creditor.

(vii) The Operational Creditor has further relied upon the completion letter dated 23.04.2024 to contend that not only had the contractual works been completed, but even the damages caused by another sub-contractor engaged by the Corporate Debtor had been rectified by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor, on instructions of the Corporate Debtor, also executed certain additional works beyon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2695

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALVH Roofing Solutions – AppellantVersusCCTEB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – RespondentC.P. (IB) - 82/2025

An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not maintainable when a pre-existing, genuine dispute regarding work execution, quality, or payment is evidenced by contemporaneous documents.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
VH Roofing Solutions – Appellant
Versus
CCTEB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
C.P. (IB) - 82/2025