Fettech Commercial Enterprises Private Limited Vs Mercury Trade Links Limited (NCLT Ahmedabad )
Summary: The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Court-II, considered a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by Fettech Commercial Enterprises Private Limited, as Operational Creditor, against Mercury Trade Links Limited, as Corporate Debtor, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for an outstanding operational debt of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-.
The Operational Creditor stated that both companies were engaged in agriculture-related products and that, during the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.12.2024, the Corporate Debtor approached it for supply of agricultural products. The supplies were stated to have been received without dispute. A running account was maintained, with invoices carrying a three-month payment period. Against total supplies of Rs. 4,41,50,034.05/-, the Corporate Debtor paid Rs. 1,71,50,034.05/-, leaving Rs. 2,70,00,000/- unpaid. The last invoice was raised on 31.12.2024 and, on the stated 90-day credit period, the debt became due on 31.03.2025. A demand notice in Form-3 and Form-4 dated 15.11.2025 was delivered on 18.11.2025. The Applicant stated that neither payment nor a dispute was raised thereafter.
The Applicant also proposed Mrs. Dipti Narayan Mundra as Interim Resolution Professional and placed her consent letter dated 08.01.2026 on record. The Respondent disputed the claimed amount, alleging pre-existing disputes concerning delayed supply and inferior quality of goods. It relied on credit notes said to have been issued for quality issues and contended that, after reconciliation, the actual amount payable would not exceed Rs. 2 crore. It further argued that such commercial disputes could not be summarily decided in Section 9 proceedings and questioned the Applicant’s authority on the basis of different Board Resolutions relating to the demand notice and petition. The Respondent also stated that it was a going concern without any secured financial creditor and that CIRP would adversely affect persons dependent upon it.
