Tayo Lummar Vs Sadguru Engineers & Allied Services Private Limited (NCLT Guwahati)
Summary : The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench, comprising Judicial Member Shri Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Shri Yogendra Kumar Singh, admitted a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by Tayo Lummar, proprietor of M/s Lummar Enterprise, against Sadguru Engineers & Allied Services Private Limited. The operational creditor claimed unpaid dues of Rs. 3,96,96,415 as on 12.04.2025 arising from supplies of stone chips and stone dust for highway construction. The petition sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The issues included existence of operational debt, default, compliance with statutory requirements and the corporate debtor’s assertion of a pre-existing dispute.
The operational creditor stated that the corporate debtor issued Work Order No. WO/SEASPL/2024-25/Lummar/001 dated 10.12.2024, communicated by email on 11.12.2024, for stone chips and stone dust needed for its highway project. Under the work order, the supplier could raise bills on a 30-day cycle, with payment within seven days of receipt: 80% after preliminary scrutiny and the remaining amount following detailed verification. The operational creditor maintained that supply of the materials and the raising of invoices gave rise to enforceable payment obligations.
The National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) issued a comfort letter dated 16.12.2024 in favour of M/s Lummar Enterprise at the request of the corporate debtor. The operational creditor relied upon the comfort letter as supporting its supply arrangement and payment assurance. The Tribunal later considered this document, together with subsequent NHIDCL communications, as corroboration that the materials had been supplied pursuant to the work order and that the supplier had raised an unpaid claim. It did not treat the comfort letter as a final determination of the exact sum recoverable.
The operational creditor submitted that materials were supplied during 11.12.2024 to 31.01.2025 and 01.04.2025 to 12.04.2025. It referred to approximately 1,469 invoices, delivery documents, an invoice calculation sheet, a ledger account and GST compliance records. It stated that GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were filed and GST liabilities were discharged. The operational creditor asserted that the goods were accepted at the site without contemporaneous complaint about quality or return. The Tribunal examined the ledger and GSTR-1 reconciliation statements for FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26, including records identifying the corporate debtor as the recipient.
The corporate debtor denied the maintainability of the petition and challenged the nature of the transactions. It alleged that Tayo Lummar was a nominal proprietor and that Shiva Harlalka and Sonjib Gogoi were involved in managing the supplier’s affairs. It also disputed the authority of persons acting for the operational creditor. The corporate debtor described a broader commercial relationship concerning highway works, construction equipment, labour, financing, material procurement and arrangements with Kiraats Construction Private Limited. It attributed the insolvency proceedings to commercial disagreements involving those persons. These were allegations raised in its defence, not independent findings of wrongdoing by the Tribunal.
The corporate debtor further alleged that large sums had been transferred to Shiva Harlalka and Kiraats Construction Private Limited without adequate supporting accounts and that invoices, credit notes and GST records contained discrepancies. It referred to large numbers of invoices for allegedly fictitious material supplies and disputed invoices connected with work contracts and vehicles. It maintained that actual deliveries were recorded through challans and site stock registers and questioned whether invoices in the name of M/s Lummar Enterprise correctly reflected the materials received. The operational creditor disputed these objections and relied on the invoices and ledger accompanying its claim.
The corporate debtor also relied on disputes concerning payments made through intermediaries, diesel consumption, transportation expenses and the quantities and value of supplies. According to its version, discussions involving Sonjib Gogoi in May and June 2025 showed that the accounts remained unreconciled. It referred to payments through Shiva Harlalka and associated entities, asserted excess payments and denied liability for certain freight charges. The operational creditor maintained that these assertions did not establish a genuine dispute about its operational debt existing before the statutory demand notice. The Tribunal addressed whether the objections met the relevant pre-existing-dispute test, rather than finally reconciling every commercial transaction among the connected persons.
The letter dated 01.07.2025, bearing reference HO/SEASPL/2024-25/Lummar/003, became a central document. The corporate debtor stated that, after adjustments for supplies and payments, the outstanding payable amount was Rs. 1,46,68,052. The operational creditor maintained that a much larger sum of Rs. 3,96,96,415 was due. The Tribunal regarded the letter as an express acknowledgment of at least Rs. 1,46,68,052 owed to the operational creditor. As that admitted sum exceeded the Rs. 1 crore threshold under Section 4 of the IBC, disagreement over the full quantum did not by itself displace the evidence of an unpaid operational liability.
NHIDCL’s letters and emails of 05.07.2025 and 07.07.2025 were also considered. These referred to the work order and the supplier’s payment claim, requested settlement within specified periods and cautioned that the claimed sums could be withheld or recovered through securities or bank guarantees in case of continued non-settlement. The Tribunal regarded the communications as additional corroboration of supplies and unpaid amounts. The contractual requirement for partial payment following preliminary scrutiny, with the balance after detailed verification, was relevant to identifying when payment became due. The Tribunal held that non-payment of the admitted outstanding amount satisfied the definition of default in Section 3(12), subject to determination of the precise operational debt.
The operational creditor sent a demand notice dated 15.07.2025 in Form 3 under Section 8(1) of the IBC. According to the Tribunal’s findings, the notice was served by email on 15.07.2025 and delivered by speed post on 17.07.2025. The corporate debtor replied on 25.07.2025, disputing the demand and asserting that differences had arisen before the notice. The operational creditor maintained that the reply contained unsupported allegations rather than contemporaneous evidence of a dispute over the debt. The Tribunal examined the notice, response and the surrounding documentation in assessing whether Section 8 and Section 9 barred admission due to a pre-existing dispute.
The corporate debtor relied particularly on a pre-institution mediation application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, identified in the order as PIM No. 580/2025. The Tribunal noted that the affidavit accompanying that application was signed and notarised on 23.12.2025, after the Section 9 petition was filed on 15.09.2025. The corporate debtor did not produce sufficient proof establishing that the mediation was instituted before the statutory demand notice. The Tribunal also noted that a dispute recorded with the National E-Governance Services Limited (NeSL) on 26.09.2025 referred to the mediation proceedings, notwithstanding the later date of the affidavit. It found this chronology insufficient to demonstrate the asserted earlier dispute.
On the statutory characterization of the claim, the Tribunal held that the supplier qualified as an operational creditor within Section 5(20) and that amounts claimed for the supply of stone chips and stone dust fell within operational debt under Section 5(21). The record referred to Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. and Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs ICICI Bank in the operational creditor’s submissions. It also recorded reliance on RMV IT Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Red Eye Services Pvt. Ltd., Surendra Sancheti Vs Gospell Digital Technologies Co. Ltd. and Leena Salot Vs Ridham Synthetics Private Limited concerning reconciliation disputes, admitted outstanding amounts and the statutory threshold. The Tribunal based its conclusion on the work order, contemporaneous documents and acknowledged liability.
The Tribunal considered the affidavit dated 14.09.2025 under Section 9(3)(b), the information-utility record, the bank document concerning non-payment and the required insolvency professional’s consent. The corporate debtor argued that Company Secretary Suraj Sharma lacked valid authority to represent the operational creditor. After examining the power of attorney dated 14.09.2025 in favour of Sonjib Gogoi and the authorisation letter executed for Suraj Sharma, the Tribunal rejected that objection. It found that the necessary authority had been conferred to pursue proceedings before the NCLT and that the application satisfied the relevant procedural requirements. It was also satisfied that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the proposed resolution professional.
By its order dated 28.10.2026, the Tribunal admitted CP(IB)/25/GB/2025 under Section 9(5)(i), finding an operational debt and default, proper service of demand notice, a complete application, an outstanding acknowledged amount above the statutory threshold and no substantiated disqualifying pre-existing dispute. It commenced CIRP against Sadguru Engineers & Allied Services Private Limited and imposed a moratorium under Section 14, subject to the statutory exceptions. Amit Pareek was appointed Interim Resolution Professional and directed to take control of the management and assets, make the public announcement, invite claims and perform the statutory functions. The operational creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 towards initial CIRP expenses, subject to reimbursement in accordance with the order and applicable law. The admission order did not finally quantify every contested part of the larger claim.
Cases Discussed
- Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017; 21/09/2017; (2018) 1 SCC 353. Cited by the operational creditor in paragraph 4.6 on the requirement of a genuine pre-existing dispute.
- Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs ICICI Bank (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal Nos. 8337–8338 of 2017; 31/08/2017; (2018) 1 SCC 407. Cited in paragraph 4.7 on default and the statutory conditions for admission; the underlying Supreme Court case concerned Section 7.
- RMV IT Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Red Eye Services Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT New Delhi); Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1374 of 2023; 25/11/2025. Relied upon in paragraph 32 regarding disputed quantum and reconciliation.
- Surendra Sancheti Vs Gospell Digital Technologies Co. Ltd. (NCLAT New Delhi); Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 583 of 2024. Relied upon in paragraph 33 regarding admitted debt exceeding the statutory threshold.
- Leena Salot Vs Ridham Synthetics Private Limited (NCLAT New Delhi); Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 375 of 2024; 03/07/2025. Relied upon in paragraph 34 where a dispute affects only part of an otherwise threshold-qualifying debt.
