Back
NCLT Kolkata Initiates CIRP Against Planet Infrastructure Management Over Unpaid Operational Debt Rs 4.95 Crore
The , has admitted into the under . The order, passed on by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah, arises from a petition filed by , an seeking recovery of an unpaid of Rs 4.95 crore.
A Debt Acknowledged but Unpaid
Ingram Micro India, a distributor of IT hardware and software, supplied products to Planet Infrastructure between March and , raising four invoices totalling Rs 4,95,82,228.99. Despite repeated follow-ups and email acknowledgements from the , payment remained outstanding. In , Planet Infrastructure issued a cheque for the full amount, which was dishonoured with the endorsement that the account had been closed. Following a under on , and no payment or dispute notice being received, Ingram Micro filed the present petition on .
The Defence
Planet Infrastructure opposed the petition on several grounds. It contended that the accounts were open, running, and subject to reconciliation, never attaining finality. The also argued that a existed, pointing to initiated against its directors and , Mr. Balbinder Singh Chhabra and Mrs. Rubi Balinder Chhabra, under , before the . That petition, filed under Section 9, was later converted to a and referred to a sole arbitrator. Planet Infrastructure submitted that these proceedings constituted a dispute within the meaning of , thereby barring admission under .
Additionally, the disputed the inclusion of interest at 24% per annum and pointed to a payment of Rs 40,00,000 made on . It also highlighted a discrepancy of Rs 2,465 in the stated ledger.
Guarantor Proceedings Do Not Bar CIRP
The Tribunal rejected the argument on a fundamental distinction: the concerned a and were initiated against the , not against the itself. Quoting the order of the dated , the NCLT observed:
“A perusal of order dated passed by Hon'ble High Court reveals that the dispute which has referred to Learned Arbitrator pertains to . Thus, the dispute does not pertain to the .”
The Bench clarified that the definition of “dispute” under , which includes suits or regarding the existence of debt, quality of goods, or breach of warranty, must relate to the itself. Proceedings against third-party guarantors do not constitute a dispute with the and the .
Threshold Crossed Despite Partial Payments
The NCLT also examined the amount of default. It noted that even after accounting for the payment of Rs 40,00,000 and excluding the disputed interest component, the outstanding principal amount of approximately Rs 4.55 crore (based on the invoices) far exceeded the of Rs 1 crore. The Tribunal observed that the had acknowledged the liability on multiple occasions through emails, confirming the balances. It also took note of the repeated , describing it as indicative of the ’s financial health:
“The continuous dishonouring of cheques issued by the indicates the financial health of the .”
Outcome: CIRP Initiated, Imposed
Finding both established, and no valid , the NCLT admitted the . It appointed Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poddar as the and directed the to deposit Rs 3,00,000 with the IRP to meet initial expenses. The Tribunal imposed a under , prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the , transfer of assets, and enforcement of security interests, among other restrictions.
A copy of the order has been forwarded to the for updating the master data and to the for its records.
This ruling reinforces the principle that arbitration or legal proceedings against of a do not constitute a under , and cannot be used to thwart a CIRP application by an . The decision provides clarity for creditors dealing with acknowledgements of debt followed by partial payments and technical defences.
