Back
NCLT Indore Admits Insolvency Plea Against Flexituff Technology Over ₹1.14 Crore Debt
The (NCLT) has initiated against , a manufacturer of FIBC (Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers), after admitting an insolvency petition filed by . The Tribunal held that the ’s own written acknowledgment, part payment, and issuance of post-dated cheques constituted a clear admission of debt, dismissing raised by the company. A debt of ₹1.14 crore remains outstanding, leading to the appointment of Apeksha Kekre as and imposition of a under .
Background: The MoU and Assumption of Debt
The dispute traces back to a dated , entered into between and , an entity associated with the . Under the arrangement, Marvel acted as an export intermediary for FVIL, facilitating overseas sales. Following a reconciliation of accounts, FVIL was found to owe Marvel ₹1.92 crore. However, in a letter dated , expressly assumed this liability, thereby stepping into the shoes of FVIL as the principal debtor.
Pursuant to this assumption, the made a part payment of ₹78 lakh and issued four post-dated cheques covering the balance amount of ₹1.14 crore. Three of those cheques were dishonoured upon presentation, leaving the debt unpaid. Marvel then issued a under on , which elicited neither payment nor a valid dispute from Flexituff Technology. Consequently, Marvel filed a petition under seeking initiation of CIRP.
The Insolvency Petition and Defences
In its petition, Marvel asserted that the operational debt was admitted in writing, supported by part payment and cheques drawn by the itself. It argued that no existed and that the amount exceeded the minimum threshold prescribed under . The also pointed to the dishonour of cheques as clear evidence of .
Flexituff Technology opposed the petition on multiple grounds. It claimed it was a stranger to the MoU with FVIL and that the petition was a coercive tactic to extract payment. It further alleged that Marvel had failed to state the date of in Part IV of the application, which it contended rendered the petition defective. Additionally, the argued that Marvel had already recovered payments either directly from overseas customers or through export credit insurance provided by , and that the letter of was obtained under .
Tribunal’s Findings and Key Observations
The NCLT bench, comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta, meticulously examined the evidence and submissions. The Tribunal held that Flexituff’s own letter dated , the part payment of ₹78 lakh, and the issuance of post-dated cheques constituted a unequivocal . The bench observed:
“A debt so admitted, part-paid and secured by cheques of the 's own hand is a duly acknowledged debt of the , whatever the position between the Applicant and FVIL may have been at the outset.”
On the issue of , the Tribunal noted that once Flexituff voluntarily assumed liability, any prior relationship with FVIL became immaterial. The could not now disown an obligation it had expressly undertaken.
Regarding , the bench found that the omission of the exact date of or the absence of bank statements in the application were matters of form, not substance. The was evident from the debtor’s own letter and the dishonoured cheques, which clearly indicated the amount due and the failure to pay.
On the defences of , prior payment by customers, or claims, the Tribunal noted that these were entirely unsupported by evidence. Notably, Flexituff had made a further payment two months after the date of the letter it claimed was coerced, and never took steps to set aside that document. This conduct seriously undermined the allegation of .
The Tribunal concluded that an operational debt of ₹1.14 crore existed, had occurred, the application was within the period of limitation, and no was established within the meaning of .
Legal Analysis
This judgment reinforces several key principles under the IBC. First, it underscores the importance of written . A cannot later dispute liability it has voluntarily admitted, especially when supported by part payment and negotiable instruments. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s view in that a “” must be genuine and not a mere .
Second, the Tribunal clarified that technical defects such as omission of date are not fatal if the substance of is evident from the documents. This pragmatic approach prevents procedural nitpicking from derailing legitimate insolvency petitions.
Third, the ruling reiterates that allegations of or prior recovery must be backed by credible evidence. A self-serving assertion, contradicted by subsequent conduct (such as making further payments), will be disregarded.
Impact on Legal Practice
The decision serves as a reminder to operational creditors to adequately document acknowledgments of debt. It also warns corporate debtors that assuming liability from a related party and then attempting to resile will not find favour with the NCLT. Practitioners should ensure that Section 8 demand notices are properly served and that applications under Section 9 include all material particulars, but the case offers reassurance that minor omissions will not invalidate a petition if the is clearly established.
For IRPs and resolution professionals, the appointment of Apeksha Kekre signals that the NCLT is moving swiftly to admit clear cases of , thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the insolvency regime.
Conclusion
The NCLT Indore’s admission of the insolvency petition against marks a straightforward application of IBC principles where a debt is acknowledged, part-paid, and secured by dishonoured cheques. The Tribunal refused to entertain baseless defences and reaffirmed the of the Code. As CIRP commences, the focus will now shift to the resolution of the ’s affairs under the supervision of the IRP, with the providing a breathing spell for the company’s management.
