Bhagwati Trading Co. Vs Premium Laminators Private Limited (NCLT Delhi)
Summary: The National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, admitted the Section 9 petition filed by M/s Bhagwati Trading Co. through its proprietor Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bansal against M/s Premium Laminators Private Limited for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The order was reserved on 29.07.2026 and pronounced on 05.08.2026..
The Operational Creditor, a proprietorship concern engaged in supplying paper, claimed outstanding operational debt of Rs. 2,67,59,096/- along with interest at 24% per annum. The petitioner stated that supplies were made against orders raised by the Corporate Debtor and that the parties maintained a running account. According to the petitioner, Rs. 2,69,75,851.12/- became due as on 31.12.2025 and the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the amount by forwarding its ledger through email dated 01.01.2026. A demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC was issued on 12.03.2026, following which the Section 9 petition was filed on 11.04.2026.
The Corporate Debtor opposed admission on the ground that a bona fide pre-existing dispute existed much before the demand notice. It relied principally on WhatsApp communications exchanged between November 2020 and April 2026 concerning alleged sub-standard and defective paper supplies, delivery failures and consequential financial losses. It also contended that the petition was being used as a recovery mechanism rather than as a remedy for insolvency. The Corporate Debtor further stated that settlement discussions continued even after the demand notice and that Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid through RTGS on 14.04.2026 as part of the conciliation process.
The petitioner disputed these assertions and contended that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the outstanding debt through its ledger, had not raised any genuine dispute in its reply to the demand notice, and had subsequently made part-payments of Rs. 2,16,755/- and Rs. 20,00,000/-. It also submitted that no debit notes, damages claims, legal proceedings or other documentary material had been produced to substantiate the allegations concerning defective goods and delayed supplies.
The Tribunal considered the statutory framework governing operational debt and the initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor. It referred to Section 5(21), which defines “operational debt”, and to Sections 8 and 9 dealing with the demand notice and application for initiation of CIRP. The Tribunal observed that, upon receipt of a demand notice, the Corporate Debtor is expected to bring the existence of a dispute to the notice of the Operational Creditor or establish payment of the unpaid operational debt.
On the issue of pre-existing dispute, the Tribunal relied upon Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 353. The Supreme Court’s test, as reproduced in the order, requires examination of whether there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation and whether the defence is supported by evidence rather than being patently feeble, spurious, hypothetical or illusory. The Tribunal noted that it was not required at the Section 9 stage to determine the ultimate merits of the alleged defects, but had to determine whether a genuine dispute existed before issuance of the demand notice.
Applying that test, the Tribunal found that the alleged dispute did not satisfy the standard laid down by the Supreme Court. The WhatsApp communications relied upon by the Corporate Debtor were exchanged with the son of the sole proprietor of the Operational Creditor, and no document established that he was authorised to represent the proprietorship concern in contractual matters, receive complaints, negotiate commercial disputes or bind the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal therefore held that the evidentiary value of those communications was limited in the facts of the case.
The Tribunal further noted that, apart from the WhatsApp communications, there was no material showing issuance of debit notes, claims for damages, termination of the commercial relationship because of defective supplies, or institution of civil proceedings or arbitration seeking compensation. It also considered the email dated 01.01.2026 forwarding the ledger reflecting the outstanding amount as on 31.12.2025. The Tribunal observed that, prima facie, the communication acknowledged the outstanding liability and that the Corporate Debtor had not disputed that acknowledgement.
The Tribunal also considered the payments of Rs. 2,16,755/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- made after issuance of the demand notice. Although the Corporate Debtor explained the payments as part of settlement discussions, the Tribunal observed that the payments indicated that the liability itself was not being outrightly denied.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the IBC is not intended to operate as a substitute for debt recovery, but held that unsupported allegations of defective goods, without cogent material, could not prevent admission where the dispute was not real, substantial and supported by evidence. It ultimately held that the alleged dispute, based principally on unauthorised WhatsApp communications and unsupported allegations, did not constitute a genuine pre-existing dispute contemplated under the Code.
The Tribunal further held that the Operational Creditor had established the existence of operational debt exceeding the statutory threshold, occurrence of default, due service of the demand notice under Section 8 and compliance with the other requirements under Section 9. Accordingly, the petition was admitted and CIRP commenced against M/s Premium Laminators Private Limited.
Consequently, the Tribunal declared moratorium under Section 14(1), appointed Mr. Gopal Garg as Interim Resolution Professional, directed him to submit the requisite consent, Registration Certificate and Authorization for Assignment, and directed publication of the public announcement. The Tribunal further directed that the management of the Corporate Debtor vest in the IRP/RP during CIRP and that personnel, promoters and persons associated with management extend assistance and cooperation. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- with the IRP towards expenses for issuing public notice and inviting claims, subject to approval of the Committee of Creditors. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the concerned parties and authorities, while the IRP was directed to report compliance within four weeks.
Cases Discussed
- Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 353 — relied upon for the test governing whether a plausible and genuine pre-existing dispute exists for purposes of a Section 9 application.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The instant petition has been filed by M/s Bhagwati Trading Co. Through its proprietor Mr Pradeep Kumar Bansal (“Applicant” / “Petitioner” / “Operational Creditor” / “OC”) on 11.04.2026 before this Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” or “Code”) r/w Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, (“Adjudicating Authority Rules”), for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), declaring moratorium and for appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) for M/s Premium Laminators Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor (“Respondent” / “CD”) on the ground that the Respondent has failed to pay the outstanding amount due to the Applicant to the tune of Rs. 2,67,59,096/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty-Seven Lacs Fifty-Nine Thousand and Ninety-Six Only) along with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from the date on which the payment became due and payable i.e. 15 days from the date of the respective invoices.
Brief details about the parties:
2. The Applicant /OC, M/s. Bhagwati Trading Co, bearing GSTIN: 07AAGPB2579R1Z7, is a proprietorship concern of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bansal, being the Sole Proprietor of the said firm, and is engaged in the business of supplying paper. The registered office is situated at D-l 1/9, Third Floor, Model Town II, and New Delhi 110009.
3. The Respondent /CD, M/s Premium Laminators Private Limited, bearing CIN: U19115DL2008PTC185362 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at CB Block 24D, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi 110064.
4. Since the registered office of both the parties are in Delhi, this Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to deal with this Application.
Submissions on behalf of the Applicant/Operational Creditor:
5. That the Corporate Debtor had placed orders with the Operational Creditor for supply of papers, and the Operational Creditor commenced supply of goods to the Corporate Debtor in accordance with mutually agreed terms.
6. That the Operational Creditor supplied different quality and quantities of paper to the CD and raised invoices from time to time. It is submitted that initially the CD made lump sum payments, and the parties maintained a current and running account.
7. That on 31.12.2025, an amount of Rs.2,69,75,851.12/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty-Nine Lacs Seventy-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-One and Twelve Paise Only) became due. The said amount was also acknowledged and confirmed by the CD vide its email dated 01.01.2026, which contained the ledger account of the parties maintained by the CD. However, no payment was made towards this amount by the CD.
8. Accordingly, the Operational Creditor issued a demand notice u/s 8 of the Code on 12.03.2026 demanding payment of the operational debt. The Corporate Debtor replied to the same on 21.03.2026 raising no dispute regarding the amount due and payable, thereby acknowledging and accepting the operational debt.
9. Hence, the present Application was filed under Section 9 of the IBC on 11.04.2026. Notice was directed to be issued in the petition vide order dated 20.04.2026, and the reply was uploaded on the DMS e-portal on 05.05.2026. The objections raised by the respondent are captured as below.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent/Corporate Debtor:
10. The Respondent/Corporate Debtor submits that the present Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed as there existed a bona fide pre-existing dispute between the parties much prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code.
11. The Corporate Debtor submits that communications evidencing such disputes were exchanged between the parties much before the issuance of the demand notice. WhatsApp communications exchanged between November 2020 to April 2026 clearly demonstrate that disputes regarding supply of sub-standard and defective material, and persistent delivery failures were continuously pursued by the Corporate Debtor much before issuance of the demand notice. The relevant extracts of the communications relied upon by the Corporate Debtor are reproduced below:
12. It is evident from the above that there were persistent disputes regarding the quality of the goods supplied by the Operational Creditor, repeated delays in delivery, and consequently financial losses were suffered by the Corporate Debtor.
13. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor submits that once a plausible pre-existing dispute is shown to exist before the issuance of the demand notice, an application under Section 9 of the Code is not maintainable.
14. The Respondent further contends that the present petition has been filed not as a remedy for insolvency, but as a strategy for recovery. It is submitted that the provisions of the Code cannot be invoked as a substitute for debt recovery, particularly where genuine disputes exist between the parties.
15. The Respondent also submits that even after issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the, the parties continue to engage in settlement and conciliation discussions. It is stated that meetings were held between the parties with a view to amicably resolve the disputes and that, during such discussions, it was agreed that the losses allegedly suffered by the Corporate Debtor on account of delayed and defective supplies would be adjusted against the outstanding amount claimed by the Operational Creditor.
16. It is further contended that, pursuant to the ongoing settlement discussions, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid by the Corporate Debtor through RTGS on 14.04.2026. According to the Respondent, the said payment was made as part of the conciliation process and cannot be construed as an unequivocal admission of liability.
17. The Respondent additionally submits that the exchange of statements of accounts between the parties for the period from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026 was solely for the purpose of reconciliation during settlement negotiations and does not amount to an acknowledgement or admission of the debt claimed by the Operational Creditor. It is accordingly prayed by the Respondent that the present petition be dismissed with costs.
18. On two dates i.e. 25.05.2026, 07.07.2026 parties sought time to settle the matter. The same was granted by this Adjudicating Authority. However, as no settlement was reached between the parties on 29.07.2026. Ld. Counsels for the parties made their submissions, and orders were reserved in the matter.
19. Meanwhile, on 05.06.2026, a rejoinder was uploaded by the petitioner on the DMS e-portal, wherein it made the following submissions:
a. That the petitioner submitted that the reply filed by the Corporate Debtor is vague, baseless and unsupported by any documentary evidence and has been filed merely to evade its admitted liability. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor itself acknowledged the outstanding operational debt by forwarding its ledger vide email dated 01.01.2026, reflecting an outstanding principal amount of Rs. 2,69,75,851.12 as on 31.12.2025.
b. It is further contended that despite receipt of the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC, the Corporate Debtor, in its reply dated 21.03.2026, did not raise any dispute regarding the quality of goods, delay in supply or any other alleged pre-existing dispute. Instead, the Corporate Debtor made part payments of Rs. 2,16,755/- on 25.03.2026 and Rs. 20,00,000/- on 14.04.2026, which, according to the Petitioner, constitute unequivocal acknowledgment of the operational debt.
c. It is further submitted that the plea of a “pre-existing dispute” has been raised for the first time in the reply to this Section 9 petition and is a mere afterthought intended to defeat the present proceedings. The WhatsApp conversations relied upon by the Corporate Debtor does not establish any bona fide dispute existing prior to issuance of the demand notice. The alleged settlement discussions were only in relation to the schedule and mode of payment of the admitted outstanding dues.
d. The Petitioner further submits that if the Corporate Debtor had genuinely suffered losses on account of defective goods or delayed supplies, it would have issued debit notes, initiated legal proceedings, or raised claims. However, no such debit notes, notices or claims were ever issued. It is contended that the allegations regarding sub-standard goods, delivery failures, production losses and loss of reputation are unsupported by any evidence and have been invented solely as a moonshine defence to avoid payment of the admitted operational debt.
e. It is also contended that the Corporate Debtor has suppressed material WhatsApp conversations wherein it admitted its liability and sought time to clear the outstanding dues. According to the Petitioner, the selective reliance placed on certain chats while withholding the complete conversation amounts to concealment of material facts and further demonstrates the absence of any genuine dispute.
f. Accordingly, it is submitted that after adjustment of the amounts received, a sum of Rs. 2,47,59,096/- remains due and payable by the Corporate Debtor towards the admitted operational debt, and since no genuine pre-existing dispute existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice, the present petition deserves to be admitted, and CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor.
Findings and analysis:
20. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, perused the documents placed on record. The relevant proceedings of the case are briefly stated as below:
| Sr. No. | Date | Particulars |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 31.12.2025 | An amount of Rs.2,69,75,851.12/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty-Nine Lacs Seventy-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-One and Twelve Paise Only) became due and payable. |
| 2. | 12.03.2026 | Aggrieved by the non-payment of its dues, the Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice u/s 8 of the Code. |
| 3. | 21.03.2026 | The Corporate Debtor replied to the Demand Notice raising disputes regarding manufacturing defects, warranty obligations, return of defective material and reconciliation of accounts. |
| 4. | 11.04.2026 | A petition u/s 9 of the Code bearing no CP (IB)-176/2026 was filed by the Petitioner against the Corporate Debtor for payment of outstanding dues amounting to 2,67,59,096/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty-Seven Lacs Fifty-Nine Thousand and Ninety-Six Only) |
| 5. | 20.04.2026 | This Adjudicating Authority directed the Petitioner to issue notice to the respondents. |
| 6. | 05.05.2026 | Reply was filed by the Corporate Debtor |
| 7. | 25.05.2026 & 07.07.2026 |
Parties requested time to arrive at a settlement. The same was granted by this Adjudicating Authority. |
| 8. | 05.06.2026 | Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner |
| 9. | 29.07.2026 | As the settlement had failed, the Ld. Counsels for the parties appeared and made their submissions. Order in the matter was reserved. |
21. In view of the above factual matrix, it is evident that upon requests made by the parties for completion of their pleadings, this Adjudicating Authority, in the interest of justice, granted opportunities to the parties to conclude their respective submission.
22. 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 sub-section (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 sub-section (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.
23. Moving further to the facts of the present case, the principal objection raised by the Corporate Debtor is that there existed a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of paper supplied, delayed deliveries, and therefore the present petition under Section 9 is not admissible. The Corporate Debtor has primarily relied upon certain WhatsApp communications exchanged between it and the son of the sole proprietor/OC to substantiate the alleged dispute.
24. The Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 353, has held that while examining an application under Section 9, the Adjudicating Authority is only required to determine whether there exists a “plausible contention” requiring further investigation and that the dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion unsupported by evidence. The Court has categorically held that the Adjudicating Authority is not required to enter into the merits of the dispute or determine whether the defence is likely to succeed. If the dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the application under Section 9 must be rejected. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
“40. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.”
25. Thus, if the material on record discloses that prior to issuance of the demand notice there existed a real dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied, breach of contractual obligations, reconciliation of accounts or any other matter falling within the ambit of Section 5(6) of the Code, the application under Section 9 is liable to be rejected.
26. At this stage of considering an application under Section 9 of the Code, this Adjudicating Authority is not required to examine whether the allegations regarding defects are ultimately correct or whether the Operational Creditor would succeed in establishing that the goods were free from defects. Such issues necessarily require appreciation of evidence and are beyond the limited jurisdiction exercised under Section 9 of the Code. What is required to be examined is whether the material placed before this Adjudicating Authority discloses a genuine dispute existing prior to the issuance of the demand notice.
27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Adjudicating Authority finds that the alleged dispute projected by the Corporate Debtor does not satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court.
28. The Corporate Debtor has only relied upon screenshots of WhatsApp conversations alleging complaints regarding defective supplies and delayed deliveries. A perusal of the WhatsApp communications relied upon by the Corporate Debtor reveals that they were exchanged with the son of the sole proprietor of the Operational Creditor. No document has been produced to establish that the said individual was authorised to represent the proprietorship concern in contractual matters or was competent to receive complaints, negotiate commercial disputes or bind the Operational Creditor.
29. A proprietorship concern has no legal personality distinct from its proprietor, and in the absence of any authorisation, communications with a family member cannot automatically be treated as communications with the Operational Creditor itself. Accordingly, the evidentiary value of such WhatsApp conversations, in the facts of the present case, is limited.
30. Further, except for these communications, there is no material on record showing issuance of debit notes, claim for damages, termination of commercial relationship on account of defective supplies or institution of any civil proceedings or arbitration seeking compensation. The absence of such records considerably weakens the defence sought to be projected by the Corporate Debtor.
31. It is further pertinent to note that the Operational Creditor has placed on record the email dated 01.01.2026 whereby the Corporate Debtor itself forwarded the ledger reflecting the outstanding amount due as on 31.12.2025.
–
32. Prima facie, the said communication acknowledges the outstnding liability of the CD. Pertinently, the Corporate Debtor has not disputed the said acknowledgement.
33. Equally significant is the conduct of the Corporate Debtor after receipt of the demand notice. The record reflects those payments amounting to Rs. 2,16,755/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- were admittedly made after issuance of the demand notice. Although the Corporate Debtor seeks to explain these payments as part of settlement discussions, such payments nevertheless indicate that the liability itself was not being outrightly denied.
34. This Adjudicating Authority is conscious that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not intended to operate as a substitute for debt recovery. However, an equally settled principle is that a Corporate Debtor cannot avoid admission of a petition merely by raising unsupported allegations of defective goods and without placing cogent material on record. The dispute must be real, substantial and supported by evidence.
35. In the present case, the alleged dispute is founded principally upon WhatsApp communications exchanged with a person whose authority to represent the Operational Creditor has not been established, and no correlation was established to prove that the dispute raised through these WhatsApp chats pertains to the pending invoices as per the Demand Notice dated 12.03.2026. Apart from these communications, no independent documentary material has been produced to substantiate the allegations of defective supplies or consequential losses. Furthermore, the Operational Creditor has not raised any such dispute even in his reply dated 21.03.2026 to the Demand Notice. Along with this, the admitted ledger confirmation, and the subsequent part-payments made by the Corporate Debtor, makes it clear that a genuine pre-existing dispute as contemplated under the Code is not present.
36. Further, the Operational Creditor has established the existence of an operational debt exceeding the statutory threshold, the occurrence of default, due service of the demand notice under Section 8 and compliance with the other requirements prescribed under Section 9 of the Code. Accordingly, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that the present petition deserves to be admitted.
ORDER
37. Having regard to the conspectus of the present case (as discussed above) we are inclined to ADMIT the present petition bearing No. CP (IB) 176(ND)/2026 filed under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 and pass the following order:
a. Accordingly, the petition bearing no. CP (IB)-176(ND)/2026 filed by Petitioner under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s Premium Laminators Private Limited, is hereby ADMITTED and this Adjudicating Authority orders the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The commencement of the CIRP shall be effective from the date of this order.
b. 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 the Corporate Debtor as per clauses (a) to (d). The order of moratorium shall affect 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 the Corporate Debtor under Section 31 of the Code, as the case may be.
c. The petitioner has not proposed the name of any Insolvency Professional. Accordingly, this Adjudicating Authority appoints Mr. Gopal Garg from the panel maintained by IBBI as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor. The proposed IRP is directed to submit his written consent in Form 2 as required under rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, along with Registration Certificate and AFA. The details of this IRP are provided below:
Name : Gopal Garg
Registration No.: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02803/2023-2024/14339
Email Id : [email protected]
Address : New Delhi
Mobile No. : 9958732176
Therefore, the IRP shall file a valid Authorization for Assignment along with Written Consent in Form-2 and Registration Certificate within 3 days of the pronouncement of this order.
38. In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the IBC, 2016, we direct the IRP to make a public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of this application under Section 9 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.
39. During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP/RP and shall perform all his functions as contemplated, inter-alia, under sections 17, 18, 20 and 25 of the Code. It is further made clear that all personnel connected with the corporate debtor, its promoters, or any other person associated with the management of the corporate debtor are under legal obligation as per section 19 of the Code to extend every assistance and cooperation to the IRP/RP. Where any personnel of the corporate debtor, its promoters, or any other person required to assist or cooperate with IRP/RP, do not assist or cooperate, the IRP/RP is at liberty to make appropriate application to this Adjudicating Authority with a prayer for passing an appropriate order;
40. 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.
41. The IRP or the RP, as the case may be, shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority periodical reports 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.
42. The Petitioner 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 Creditors (CoC). This amount shall be adjusted towards the fees and expenses payable to the IRP/RP.
43. The Registry is hereby directed to communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner, 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 the 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.
44. The Registry is further directed to send a copy of the order to the IBBI for their record.
45. The IRP shall also serve a copy of this order to the various departments such as Income Tax, GST (centre), State Trade Tax, Provident Fund, etc. who are likely to have their claim against the Corporate Debtor as well as to the trade unions/employees associations so that they are informed timely initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor;
46. A certified copy of the order may be issued to all the concerned parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
47. IRP to report compliance within four weeks.
