Quess Corp Ltd. Vs Wardwiz (India) Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary: Quess Corp Ltd., an operational creditor, challenged the dismissal of its application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking resolution of an alleged operational debt of Rs. 8,94,65,473. The NCLT had rejected the application on two grounds: an incorrect destination PIN code in the demand-notice tracking record, and inclusion of 120 invoices relating to July and August 2019, outside the agreement period of 25 June 2018 to 24 June 2019. The appellant argued that the demand notice had actually been delivered to Wardwiz (India) Solutions Pvt. Ltd. despite the tracking record showing PIN code 411043 instead of 411045. It relied on the delivery record and the corporate debtor’s appearances before the NCLT without raising a non-service objection. The appellant further submitted that even after excluding 120 of the 230 invoices, the remaining 110 invoices represented approximately Rs. 5.43 crore, exceeding the Rs. 1 crore threshold under Section 4 of the Code. The respondent did not file a reply and was heard ex parte on appeal.
The NCLAT held that the NCLT should have determined whether the Section 8 notice had actually been delivered rather than treating the PIN-code discrepancy as decisive. It also found that the NCLT had not assessed whether the remaining 110 invoices independently crossed the statutory threshold. The appellate tribunal set aside the dismissal, restored CP (IB) No. 523/MB/2022 and remanded the matter for fresh findings on both issues. The parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on 24 September 2025; costs were to be borne individually. Regarding the disputed invoices, the appellant submitted that even after excluding 120 invoices relating to July and August 2019, the remaining 110 invoices represented approximately Rs. 5.43 crore. This amount independently exceeded the statutory minimum default threshold of Rs. 1 crore prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC. The appellant argued that the NCLT had failed to examine this material aspect before dismissing the insolvency application.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF NCLAT NEW DELHI
This appeal is filed by the Unsuccessful Operational Creditor whose application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) bearing CP (IB) No. 523/MB/2022 against Wardwiz (India) Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’) for the resolution a of debt of Rs. 8,94,65,473/- has been dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Tribunal on two ground. Firstly, the Appellant has not delivered the demand notice prescribed under Section 8 of the Code to the Corporate Debtor because the pin code was wrongly mentioned as 411043 instead of 411045 and secondly, on the ground that the Appellant sent 230 invoices for the period of agreement which was operating from 25.06.2018 to 24.06.2019 in which 120 invoices of the month of July and August, 2019 cannot be added.
3. Notice in this appeal was issued on 25.11.2024 and at that time the presence of Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocate was recorded on behalf of the Respondent. On 06.01.2025, Counsel for the Respondent took time to file reply within one week. However, thereafter the Respondent absented as no one had appeared on its behalf. The Respondent remained unrepresented and even no reply was filed. The Respondent has also even not appeared today, therefore, the Respondent is proceeded against ex-parte and ex-parte arguments have been heard.
4. It is pertinent to mentioned that the Respondent served the application filed under Section 9 of the Code along with the notice issued under Section 8.
5. On 23.03.2023, the Respondent appeared through Mr. Agam H. Maloo and the Tribunal passed the following order
“Ld. Counsel for the Parties are present. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor seeks time to file and place on record Affidavit in Reply. Time is allowed. Affidavit in Reply be filed and placed on record, well before the adjourned date by duly serving a copy to the other side, well in advance, failing which the Corporate Debtor’s right to file and place on record Affidavit in Reply, shall stand forfeited. List this matter on Board on 03.05.2023, for further consideration and hearing.”
3. Thereafter, on the adjourned date i.e., 05.07.2023 the Tribunal passed the following order :-
“Mr. Prakhar Tandon Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent & s. Vidhi Sharda Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant are present.
Both sides present. Reply is not filed by the Respondent. Respondents right to file Reply is forfeited. List this matter on board on 07.08.2023.”
7. On 05.07.2023, Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Time was granted to the Respondent to file the reply but no reply was filed before the Tribunal as well.
8. Be that as it may, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that the demand notice was served on a wrong address by using the pin code 411043 instead of 411045.
9. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the address of the Respondent was taken from the Company Master Data i.e., Office No. 101, 1st Floor, Pride Purple Accord Baner Pune, Pune, MH 411045.
10. It is submitted that the demand notice was served on the correct address but in the tracking report the pin code- 411043 is mentioned. He has submitted that despite the aforesaid typographical error of the pin code mentioned in the tracking report, the demand notice (Item Posted through the speed post was delivered) which is evident from the track report attached as Annexure A-6.
11. He has also submitted that the Respondent had appeared on 23.03.2023 and on 05.07.2023 but at no point of time any objection was raised by the Respondent either orally or in writing that the demand notice was not served upon it and the application filed under Section 9 was not maintainable. Rather it is submitted that the Respondent though was granted time to file reply as prayed yet no reply was filed for the reason best known to it.
12. It is further submitted that in this appeal also the Respondent had appeared through Counsel and time was granted to file the reply yet the reply was not filed. He has thus submitted that the Respondent is playing hide and seek with the court and is not coming forward with the truth that the notice prescribed under Section 8 of the Code was actually received.
13. He has further submitted that in so far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue that out of 230 invoices the Appellant cannot claim the amount of 120 invoices is concerned, he has drawn our attention to page 163 to 170 of the Appeal Paper Book to contend that even if 120 invoices are deducted out of 230 invoices, the amount involved in the remaining 110 invoices is Rs. 5.43 Crores which is more than the threshold of Rs. 1 Crore provided under Section 4 of the Code.
14. It is submitted that the Learned Tribunal has not looked into this aspect of the matter and dismissed the application only on the ground that the Appellant has also claimed the amount of the invoices of the period of July to August, 2019.
15. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record with his able assistance. There is no dispute that application under Section 9 of the Code cannot be filed until and unless notice under Section 8 is served upon the Corporate Debtor.
16. The notice under Section 8 dated 10.12.2021 was sent through speed post on the address obtained from the Company Master Data.
17. The tracking report shows that the destination pin code has been mentioned as 411043 but it is also not in dispute that the said item demand notice was delivered at the address of the Respondent despite pin code no. 411043.
18. The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the issue as to whether the demand notice had in fact been delivered to the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) or not rather getting influenced with the wrong mentioning of the pin code.
19. In so far as, the issue of 230 invoices minus 120 invoices is concerned, the Tribunal has also not returned any finding that in case 110 invoices are only to be looked into even then whether the said invoices are enough to cross the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore.
20. In such circumstances, we find it just and expedient, to set aside the Impugned Order and remand the case back to the Learned Tribunal by restoring the original application bearing CP (IB) No. 523/MB/2022 to decide the application once again by recording a firm finding regarding delivery of notice and also taking into account the amount involved in 110 invoices which are not in dispute, as to whether the said invoices cross the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore or not.
21. With these observations, the present appeal is allowed. Impugned Order is set aside. The applicaton is restored to its original number. The matter is remanded back to the Learned Tribunal. The Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.09.2025. The parties shall bear their own cost. I.A.’s, if any pending, are closed.
