Martin Consulting LLC Vs Bird ExecuJet Airport Services Private Limited (NCLT Chandigarh)
The petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was filed by Martin Consulting LLC (“Operational Creditor”) against Bird ExecuJet Airport Services Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) for an operational debt of ₹54,03,581 inclusive of GST and net of TDS, along with 15% interest. The default was stated to have occurred in February 2019 upon completion of the Consulting Agreement dated 1 March 2018, when the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the dues despite completion of services.
Under the Consulting Agreement, the Operational Creditor was engaged to develop and deploy specialist capability for the design and development of an apron and a business aviation terminal. It alleged that the Corporate Debtor requested project closure on 5 March 2019 and sought amicable settlement. The Operational Creditor sent a draft Termination Agreement but received no payment despite repeated reminders. A demand notice was issued on 26 November 2019, followed by a reply on 10 December 2019, where the Corporate Debtor made general allegations of non-compliance with Clause 9 of the Agreement without producing proof.
The Corporate Debtor, in its reply, stated that it had already paid ₹95,39,743 (including ₹8,94,507 as TDS and ₹8,97,036 as GST reimbursement) and disputed invoices for ₹3,52,426 due to lack of supporting documentation. It also alleged that the Operational Creditor retained equipment for which reimbursement was claimed, submitted false or forged documents, and sought duplicate reimbursements. Further allegations included a breach of confidentiality when project details were shared with the media, for which it claimed to have terminated the Agreement on 5 March 2019. It stated that new consultants were engaged to complete the designs. Additionally, the Corporate Debtor accused the Operational Creditor of tax and accounting irregularities, inconsistencies in claimed figures across documents (₹54,03,581; ₹58,80,572; ₹70,58,164; ₹95,39,744), and non-filing of GST returns since April 2018.
