Case Law Details
Zenith Media Scope Private Limited Vs Nirvikar Films LLP (NCLT Delhi)
The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), declaration of moratorium and appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional against the Corporate Debtor for an alleged default of ₹1,49,14,432 as on the date of filing.
According to the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor engaged it to provide advertisement and promotion services pursuant to a purchase order dated 11 April 2022, which required payment within 30 days of the invoice. An invoice dated 30 April 2022 was paid on 2 August 2022, while subsequent invoices dated 29 August 2022 and 1 September 2022 remained unpaid. The parties later entered into a full and final arrangement on 31 March 2023, pursuant to which the Operational Creditor issued a credit note reducing the total dues payable. The Operational Creditor thereafter issued a demand letter dated 7 August 2024 seeking payment of the outstanding principal along with interest. It contended that the Corporate Debtor, in its communication dated 12 August 2024, did not dispute either the commercial relationship or the outstanding dues and only sought time for payment. A demand notice under Section 8 of the Code was issued on 24 February 2026, and in its reply dated 21 March 2026, the Corporate Debtor again sought time for payment. The Operational Creditor claimed a total default of ₹1,49,14,432 comprising principal of ₹89,56,353 and interest of ₹59,58,079.
The Corporate Debtor opposed the petition primarily on maintainability. It submitted that the admitted principal debt was only ₹89,56,353, which was below the minimum threshold of ₹1 crore prescribed under the Code. It argued that the Operational Creditor had crossed the threshold only by including interest of ₹59,58,079, which according to the Corporate Debtor could not be considered for determining the statutory threshold. It further contended that there was no independent agreement providing for payment of interest, that the interest stipulation formed part of invoices unilaterally issued by the Operational Creditor, and that the interest claim was neither admitted nor crystallised. It also argued that the proceedings were in substance recovery proceedings, whereas the Code was not intended to operate as a debt recovery mechanism. The Corporate Debtor stated that it remained solvent and operational, that its financial difficulties were temporary, arising from disputes and litigations relating to a previous project, and that its communications merely sought accommodation for payment rather than constituting admissions warranting initiation of CIRP.
In response, the Operational Creditor submitted that the purchase order required payment within 30 days, while the invoices dated 29 August 2022 and 1 September 2022 and the credit note dated 31 March 2023 expressly stipulated interest at 18% per annum on delayed payments. It argued that the parties were ad idem regarding payment of interest and that the interest formed part of the operational debt for the purposes of Section 4 of the Code. It also pointed out that both the demand notice and earlier demand letter specifically claimed principal and interest and that the Corporate Debtor never disputed either the contractual arrangement or the computation of dues but merely sought time for payment. The Operational Creditor relied upon decisions of the NCLAT in Prashant Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria and Rajkishore Sukhdeo Mundra v. Prashant D. Agarwal & Anr. and distinguished Amsons Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd., Comet Performance Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd., and SNJ Synthetics Ltd. v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. on the basis stated in its submissions.
The Adjudicating Authority considered the relevant provisions of Sections 5(21), 5(11), 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It observed that the principal issue was whether the interest claimed by the Operational Creditor could be taken into account while determining the debt and default under the Code and whether the operational debt exceeded the threshold prescribed under Section 4.
The Tribunal noted that although the purchase order did not expressly provide for payment of interest, the invoices dated 29 August 2022 and 1 September 2022 and the credit note dated 31 March 2023 specifically stipulated interest at 18% per annum on delayed payments. It further observed that the Operational Creditor’s communication dated 7 August 2024 claimed both principal and interest and that the Corporate Debtor, in its reply dated 12 August 2024, did not dispute either the computation or entitlement to interest. Similarly, after the Section 8 demand notice dated 24 February 2026 quantified the claim including interest, the Corporate Debtor’s reply dated 21 March 2026 neither denied the principal amount nor challenged the levy of interest or computation of debt, but instead sought time to arrange funds and clear the dues. The Tribunal also recorded that no contemporaneous communication had been placed on record showing that the Corporate Debtor had disputed the applicability of interest or rejected the invoice terms.
On this basis, the Tribunal held that the services rendered by the Operational Creditor and the principal outstanding amount had never been disputed; that although the purchase order did not provide for interest, the subsequent invoices and credit note contained such stipulation and the Corporate Debtor never disputed either the levy or computation despite repeated demands; and that, in the absence of any pre-existing dispute, the aggregate operational debt of ₹1,49,14,432 exceeded the threshold prescribed under Section 4, satisfying the conditions under Section 9(5)(i). Accordingly, the petition under Section 9 was admitted.
The Tribunal ordered commencement of CIRP, declared moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, directed public announcement, vested management of the Corporate Debtor in the IRP during CIRP, directed cooperation by the Corporate Debtor, required the Operational Creditor to deposit ₹3,00,000 towards CIRP expenses, and issued consequential directions regarding communication of the order and compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLT JUDGMENT/ORDER
This petition has been filed by M/s. Zenith Media Scope Private Limited (Petitioner/Operational Creditor/OC) on 14.04.2026, before this Adjudicating Authority (AA) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC / Code) r/w Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, (AA Rules), for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), declaring moratorium and for appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), against M/s Nirvikar Films LLP, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor (CD) on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted/failed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,49,14,432/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred And Thirty Two only as on date of filing the instant application.
Brief facts of the case as stated in the application
2. Zenith Media Scope Private Limited, i.e. the Operational Creditor bearing CIN No. U36900DL2011PTC221699 is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and is engaged in providing technology-based dynamic digital advertising and media services. Its registered office address is: B-1/E-14, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, South Delhi, Badarpur, New Delhi, India –
3. Nirvikar Films LLP, i.e. the Corporate Debtor or CD, having LLPIN No. AAP6413 is a limited liability partnership incorporated under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and is engaged in the business of film production. Its registered office address is B-1/E-23, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Badarpur (South Delhi), New Delhi, India –
Submissions of the Petitioner:
4. The CD had engaged the Operational Creditor to supply advertisement and promotion services to a third party brand situated at Hapur, Bareilly, Moradabad and Haridwar pursuant to the purchase order dated 11th April, 2022. (Annexure II-C of the petition) The purchase order stipulated that payments should be made within 30 days of raising the invoice. A copy of the purchase order dated 11th April, 2022 is annexed as below:
5. The Operational Creditor raised an invoice against the CD on 30.04.2022 for an amount of INR 1,41,60,000. The same was cleared by the Corporate Debtor on 02.08.2022. Subsequently, invoices dated 29.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 were raised, a copy of which is extracted below:
–
6. Thereafter, as a part of the full and final arrangement between the parties on 31.03.2023, the Operational Creditor raised a credit note whereby the total dues payable were brought down. A copy of the invoice dated 31.03.2023 is attached below:
7. Since no payment was made by the CD, the Operational Creditor issued a letter dated 07.08.2024 demanding the outstanding principal amount together with interest. A copy of the letter is attached at Annexure II-F of the application.
8. It is contended by the OC that the Corporate Debtor, in its communications dated 12.08.2024, has not disputed the commercial relationship or the outstanding dues but has cited internal difficulties and merely sought time for payment.
9. Aggrieved by the continued default, the Operational Creditor served a demand notice dated 24.02.2026 u/s 8 of the IBC demanding immediate payment of the defaulted amount.
10. In its reply to the demand notice dated 21.03.2026, the CD again sought time to make the payments. Thus, the present application was filed by the Operational Creditor u/s 9 for outstanding payment of Rs 1,49,14,432/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Two Only, including Principal amount of Rs 89,56,353/- and interest Rs 59,58,079/).
11. Further particulars of transactions as submitted under Form 5 are as follows:
| S. No. | Particulars | Details | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. | TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBT, DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH DEBT FELL DUE, AND THE DATE FROM WHICH SUCH DEBT FELL DUE | The total amount of debt is Rs. 1,49,14,432/-(Rupees One Crore Forty-Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four-Hundred and Thirty-Two Only)Details of transactions on account of which amount fell due:
The Parties A. Zenith Media Scope Private Limited is a technology based, dynamic digital. technology advertising company (“Operational Creditor/OC”). B. Nirvikar Films LLP is a film production entity registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (“Corporate Debtor/CD”).Transaction between the Parties C. The Corporate Debtor approached the Operational Creditor and proposed to the OC to provide advertisement and promotion services for a third-party brand at Hapur, Bareilly, Moradabad and Haridwar. D. On 11 April 2022, the CD issued a purchase order of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Lakhs Only), exclusive of GST at 18% with validity period of six months starting 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022. As per the purchase order, the payment was to be made within 30 days from the date of invoice or the actual last usage as per bill, whichever was later. E. On 30 April 2022, the OC issued an invoice against the CD for an amount of Rs. 1,41,60,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-One Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only). The same was paid by the CD on 2 August 2022. F. On 29 August 2022, the OC raised another invoice of Rs 1,35,70,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) inclusive of taxes. However, the same was not paid by the CD. G. On 1 September 2022, the OC raised another invoice of Rs 1,00,30,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Thousand Only) inclusive of taxes. However, the same was not paid by the CD. H. Thereafter discussions were held between the parties owing to delay in clearance of invoices and owing to concerns regarding services by the OC, the parties agreed to enter into an full and final arrangement and accordingly, on 31 March 2023, the OC issued a credit note worth Rs 1,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Only), in favour of the CD that brought down the total payable amount to Rs 1,16,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Only). I. In furtherance of the invoices raised by the OC, the CD on 18 July 2023 made a payment of Rs 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) to the OC. J. The CD requested for a reversal of payment on the pretext of immediate requirement of funds and with the mutual understanding of the parties that a series produced by the CD was supposed to get released in August 2023, after which the CD promised to pay the entire accrued amount to the OC after receiving money from its client. K. The OC, in furtherance to the request made by the CD, made a payment of Rs 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to the CD on 10 August 2023 bringing the total due amount from the CD to the OC to Rs 1,36,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Six Lakhs Only). L. On 29 September 2023, the CD made a payment of Rs 40,25,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only) to the OC and thereby acknowledging the debt under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. M. Thereafter, on 5 July 2024, the CD further made a payment of Rs 6,18,647/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Seven Only) to the OC. N. On 7 August 2024, the OC sent a letter to the CD demanding the outstanding dues with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as specified in the invoices. O. On 12 August 2024, the CD replied to the letter admitting to the contractual agreement between the parties and admitting the accrued payments while citing internal reasons of the LLP for non-payment of the amounts to the CD. Payment Terms P. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the payments were to be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the raising of invoice else interest at the rate of 18% p.a. would be applicable—as specifically mentioned in the invoices. Q. As is evident from the conduct of the CD, the payments were erratic and were in complete violation of the terms agreed upon by the parties. R. The debt fell due on various dates when the CD failed to make the payments as stipulated in the invoices that prescribed that the payments be made. Date on which debt fell due: 7 August 2024, when the demand notice/letter for dues was sent by the CD to the OC. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. | AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED (ATTACH THE WORKINGS FOR COMPUTATION IN TABULAR FORM) | A. The principal amount of Rs. 89,56,353/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Lakhs Fifty-Six Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Three Only) along with interest of Rs. 59,58,079/- (Rupees Fifty-Nine Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Seventy-Nine Only) remains outstanding against the CD in respect of the following invoices raised on account of supply of services:
B. Of the amount of Rs. 2,88,00,000/- as from the invoices, total following amounts have been adjusted/paid:
C. The total outstanding amount hence, is the net amount of the payments made by the CD to the OC and the invoices raised by the OC to the CD which amounts to Rs. 89,56,353/-. D. The interest amount has been computed at the rate of 18% p.a. as has been stipulated in the invoices, which cumulatively amounts to Rs. 59,58,079/-. No dispute had been raised by the Corporate Debtor with respect to the pending payments. E. On 25 February 2026, the OC sent a demand notice to the CD in compliance with Section 8 of the IBC, 2016. F. On 21 March 2026, the CD replied to the demand notice and admitted to the outstanding payments. G. The debt fell due on various dates when the CD failed to make the payments as stipulated in the invoices, which prescribed that the payments be made within 30 days from the date of the invoices. However, for the convenience of calculation of the due date, the Petitioner craves leave to rely on 7 August 2024, when the demand notice for dues was sent by the CD to the OC. |
The application was first listed on 22.04.2026 wherein the following order was passed:
ORDER
1. The present application/petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has been filed by Zenith Media Scope Private Limited, seeking initiation of CIRP against M/s. Nirvikar Films LLP, the Corporate Debtor herein, for an alleged default of Rs. 1,49,14,432/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four-Hundred and Thirty-Two Only).
2. Heard, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Operational Creditor.
3. Issue notice to Respondent(s) through all mode(s) returnable by 02.06.2026.
4. The petitioner is directed to serve the notice on the Respondent(s) by all modes and file proof of service and affidavit of service within one week. Reply shall be filed within one week from the date of receipt of notice.
5. List the matter on 02.06.2026.
In compliance with the above order a reply was uploaded on the DMS e-portal on 28.05.2026 by the Corporate Debtor.
Submissions made by the Corporate Debtor:
13. At the outset, the Corporate Debtor has opposed the present Petition on the ground of maintainability. It is submitted by the CD that the admitted debt is only for ₹89,56,353/, which is below the minimum threshold of INR 1 crore prescribed under the Code.
14. It is contended that the Operational Creditor has sought to artificially cross the threshold limit by including an interest component of ₹59,58,079/- and thereby inflating the total claim amount to ₹1,49,14,432/-. According to the Corporate Debtor, such interest cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the threshold requirement under the Code.
15. The Corporate Debtor has submitted that there exists no independent agreement executed between the parties for providing payment of interest. It was argued that the interest stipulation relied upon by the Operational Creditor forms part of the invoices unilaterally issued by it and does not constitute a mutually agreed contractual term.
16. It was further submitted that the claim for interest is neither admitted nor crystallised and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to confer jurisdiction upon this Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Code. The Corporate Debtor has contended that where the principal amount itself falls below the statutory threshold, a disputed or unilateral claim for interest cannot be utilised to maintain an insolvency proceeding.
17. Without prejudice to the aforesaid objection, the Corporate Debtor has also submitted that the present proceedings are essentially in the nature of recovery proceedings. It was contended that the Code is not intended to serve as a debt recovery mechanism and cannot be invoked merely for recovery of alleged outstanding dues. The Corporate Debtor stated that it is a solvent and operational entity carrying on its business activities. The financial difficulties presently being faced by it are temporary in nature and have arisen due to disputes and litigations initiated by certain erstwhile partners in relation to the production, execution, exploitation and revenue streams of its previous project titled “Aakhri Sach”.
18. It is submitted by the CD that the aforesaid disputes have adversely impacted the Corporate Debtor’s ability to realise and deploy its receivables and business resources, resulting in liquidity constraints. However, such temporary financial difficulties do not establish insolvency within the meaning of the Code.
19. The Corporate Debtor has further submitted that it has consistently expressed its intention to clear the outstanding dues and has repeatedly sought reasonable time to arrange funds. The communications relied upon by the Operational Creditor, according to the Corporate Debtor, merely reflect requests for accommodation and ought not to be construed as admissions warranting initiation of CIRP. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present Application be dismissed as being not maintainable and devoid of merit.
20. Further, a short note has been filed by the Operational Creditor on 04.06.2026 on the DMS e-portal wherein the petitioner has reiterated its factual position and has made the following submissions:
- The Purchase Order dated 11.04.2022 stipulated payment within 30 days from the date of invoice. The invoices dated 29.08.2022 and 01.09.2022, as well as the Credit Note dated 31.03.2023, expressly provided that delayed payments would attract interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
- That the parties were ad idem regarding payment of interest and the same forms part of the operational debt for purposes of Section 4 of the Code.
- The demand notice dated 24.02.2026 specifically claimed both principal and interest. In response dated 21.03.2026, the Corporate Debtor did not dispute either the contractual arrangement or the computation of dues and merely sought time for payment.
- Reliance has further been placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Prashant Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria and Rajkishore Sukhdeo Mundra v. Prashant D. Agarwal & Anr. to contend that where invoices stipulate delayed-payment interest and such stipulation is not disputed by the Corporate Debtor, the interest component forms part of the debt for determining the threshold under the Code.
- The Operational Creditor has also distinguished the decisions in Amsons Communication Pvt. Ltd. ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd., Comet Performance Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd., and SNJ Synthetics Ltd. v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that in those cases the claim for interest was either specifically disputed or lacked evidence of mutual understanding between the parties.
21. A short note was uploaded by the Corporate Debtor on 02.06.2026 on the DMS e-portal. The same has been taken into consideration also.
Analysis and Findings
22. We have heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for both parties and also perused the documents on record.
23. The principal objection raised by the Corporate Debtor pertains to the maintainability of the present Petition. According to the Corporate Debtor, the principal operational debt admittedly due is ₹89,56,353/-, which falls below the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is contended that the Operational Creditor has sought to cross the statutory threshold by impermissibly including an interest component of ₹59,58,079/-.
24. Before analysing the issues at hand, it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law.
Section 5(21) defines operational debt as:
“operational debt” means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority;”
Further, section 8 of the code reads as follows:
“8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor. –
(1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debtor copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational creditor –
(a) existence of a dispute, [if any, or] record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute;
(b) the payment of unpaid operational debt-
(i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or
(ii) by sending an attested copy of record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by the corporate debtor.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, a “demand notice” means a notice served by an operational creditor to the corporate debtor demanding [payment] of the operational debt in respect of which the default has occurred.”
Section 5(11) defines initiation date as follows:
“initiation date” means the date on which a financial creditor, corporate applicant or operational creditor, as the case may be, makes an application to the Adjudicating Authority for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process or pre-packaged insolvency resolution process, as the case may be;”
Further, section 9 reads as follows:
“9. Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor. –
(1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under subsection (1) of section 8, if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under subsection (2) of section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process.
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application furnish-
(a) a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor; (b) an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt;
(c) a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt 1[by the corporate debtor, if available;]
[(d) a copy of any record with information utility confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, if available; and
(e) any other proof confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor or such other information, as may be prescribed.]
(4) An operational creditor initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process under this section, may propose a resolution professional to act as an interim resolution professional.
(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), by an order–
(i) admit the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor if, –
(a) the application made under sub-section (2) is complete;
(b) there is no [payment] of the unpaid operational debt;
(c) the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor;
(d) no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility; and (e) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed under subsection (4), if any.
(ii) reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, if –
(a) the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete;
(b) there has been [payment] of the unpaid operational debt;
(c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor;
(d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility; or
(e) any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional:
Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting an application under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice from the adjudicating Authority.
[Provided further that if the Adjudicating Authority has not passed an order under this sub-section within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (2), it shall record the reasons for such delay in writing.]
(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5) of this section.”
The scheme of Sections 8 and 9 therefore demonstrates that upon receipt of a demand notice, the Corporate Debtor is expected either to show that the debt is disputed or establish that payment has been made thereof. A failure to do so assumes significance while examining the existence and quantum of the debt claimed.
25. The issue for consideration here is whether the interest component claimed by the Operational Creditor can be taken into account while determining the debt and default under the Code and, consequently, whether the operational debt due from the Corporate Debtor exceeds the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code.
26. In the present case, the Purchase Order dated 11.04.2022 stipulated that payments were to be made within 30 days. Indeed, the Purchase Order does not expressly provide for payment of interest in the event of delayed payment.
27. However, the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor on 29.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 specifically provided that delayed payments would attract interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Credit Note dated 31.03.2023 also contained a similar stipulation.
28. The conduct of the parties also assumes significance here. By communication dated 07.08.2024, the Operational Creditor specifically demanded a sum of ₹1,25,11,675/-, comprising principal dues of ₹89,56,353/- and interest of ₹35,55,322/-.
29. In response thereto, the Corporate Debtor, by communication dated 12.08.2024, did not dispute either the computation or the entitlement of the Operational Creditor to claim interest. On the contrary, the Corporate Debtor expressly stated that the communication should not be construed as a denial of the contractual arrangement between the parties and assured payment of the outstanding dues. The reply of the CD dated 12.08.2024 is extracted below for ready reference:
30. The position remained unchanged even upon issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code dated 24.02.2026. The said notice specifically quantified the claim at ₹1,49,14,432/-, comprising principal dues of ₹89,56,353/- and accrued interest of ₹59,58,079/.
31. Significantly, the reply dated 21.03.2026 does not contain any denial of the principal amount, any challenge to the levy of interest, or any dispute regarding the computation of the debt. Instead, the Corporate Debtor sought time to arrange funds and clear the outstanding dues in a phased manner. The reply of the CD dated 21.03.2026 is extracted hereunder:
32. Thus, the material on record does not disclose any contemporaneous objection by the Corporate Debtor to the said stipulation. No communication has been placed before this Adjudicating Authority demonstrating that the Corporate Debtor ever disputed the applicability of interest or rejected the terms contained in the invoices.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon a cumulative consideration of the pleadings, documents and submissions of the parties, we are satisfied that the present Petition merits admission under Section 9 of the Code for the following reasons:
i. The services rendered by the Operational Creditor and the principal outstanding amount of ₹89,56,353/- have never been disputed by the Corporate Debtor.
ii. Although the Purchase Order did not expressly provide for interest, the subsequent invoices and Credit Note stipulated interest on delayed payments. The said claim was specifically reiterated in the demand letter dated 07.08.2024 and the demand notice issued under Section 8 of the Code, yet the Corporate Debtor never disputed the levy or the computation thereof, and merely sought time for payment.
iii. In the absence of any pre-existing dispute and considering that the aggregate operational debt of ₹1,49,14,432/-exceeds the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code, the conditions contemplated under Section 9(5)(i) stand satisfied.
Order
34. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition bearing CP(IB)-190/2026 filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Code r/w Rule 6 of the Adjudicating Authority Rules for initiating CIRP against the Respondent is hereby allowed. It is accordingly, ordered as follows:
i. As a consequence, thereof, the petition being admitted in terms of Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016 shall follow in relation to Corporate Debtor as per clauses (a) to (d). However, during the pendency of moratorium period, terms of Section 14(2), to Section 14 (3) of the IBC, 2016 shall come into force. The order of moratorium shall effect from the date of this order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan under sub section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for Liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 31 of the Code, as the case may be.
ii. The OC has not proposed the name of any Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Hence, this Adjudicating Authority appoints Lovneet Handa from the panel maintained by IBBI. The details of the IRP are as under:
Name Lovneet Handa
Registration : IBBI/IPA-
No. 002/IPN01048/2020-
2021/13386
Email Id : loveneet.cs@gmail.com
Address : 201, Second Floor, Park View Complex, 48, Hasanpur, IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi, 110092
The proposed IRP shall submit his written communication in Form-2 as required under Rule 9 (1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, with a copy of registration within 7 days from the receipt of this order.
iii. In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the IBC, 2016, we direct the IRP to make public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code. The expression immediately means within three days as clarified by the Explanation to Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
iv. During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP/RP, in terms of Section 17 of the IBC. The officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP within one week from the date of receipt of this Order, in default of which coercive steps will follow. There shall be no further opportunity given in this regard.
v. The IRP is expected to take full charge of the Corporate Debtor’s assets, and documents without any delay whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance, and this Court hereby directs the Police Authorities to render all assistance as may be required by the IRP in this regard.
vi. The IRP or the RP, as the case may be shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor and the action taken in compliance of Section 17, 18, 20, 25 of the Code and Regulation 3A & 4 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.
vii. The OC shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Only) with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to the approval of the Committee of Creditor (CoC). This amount shall be adjusted towards the fees and expenses payable to the IRP/RP.
viii. The Registry is hereby directed to communicate a copy of the order to the OC, the Corporate Debtor, the IRP and the Registrar of Companies, NCR, New Delhi, by Speed Post and by email, at the earliest but not later than seven days from today, and upload the same on website immediately after pronouncement of the order. The Registrar of Companies shall update its website by updating the status of the Corporate Debtor, and specific mention regarding admission of this petition must be notified.
ix. The registry is further directed to send a copy of the order to the IBBI also for their record.
x. A certified copy of the order may be issued to all the concerned parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. IRP to report compliance within four weeks.
Author Bio
