Airtech Airconditioning Vs Parnika Commercial & Estate Private Limited (NCLAT Delhi)
The appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi arose from an order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi Bench-III) dismissing a Section 9 application filed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Operational Creditor had been engaged by the Corporate Debtor to provide HVAC and firefighting services for three projects—Vanijya Bhawan (Delhi), DRDO (Delhi), and IIT Bombay (Mumbai). Separate work orders and invoices were issued for these projects.
Due to non-payment, a demand notice under Section 8 was issued on 21.10.2022 claiming ₹8.23 crore with interest. The Corporate Debtor denied liability and alleged deficiencies in performance. A Section 9 application was filed on 22.02.2023 but was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the claim was barred under Section 10A of the IBC, which prohibits initiation of CIRP for defaults occurring between 25.03.2020 and 24.03.2021.
The Appellant contended that while some invoices relating to DRDO and IIT Bombay fell within the Section 10A prohibited period, two invoices pertaining to the Vanijya Bhawan Project did not. These invoices were dated 29.03.2022 and 13.07.2022, with respective dates of default on 14.04.2022 and 29.07.2022. The outstanding amount for these two invoices, after adjustment, was ₹2.36 crore—above the ₹1 crore threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC. It was argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider these invoices and erroneously dismissed the entire application by referring only to invoices dated 06.11.2020, 27.11.2020, and 03.03.2021, which fell within the Section 10A period.
