Case Details: Redpro Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. Skyline Infratech (P.) Ltd. - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 766 (NCLAT-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Judicial Member & Naresh Salecha, Technical Member
-
Ms Kanika Singhal, Ms Deepshikha & Ms Richa Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant.
-
Anuj Agarwal, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellant-operational creditor received work orders from the respondent-corporate debtor. On non-receipt of further payments, the appellant issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC and thereafter filed a Section 9 application.
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 9 petition primarily on the ground that an invoice fell within the Section 10A barred period, holding that an application under Section 9 could not be initiated for a default during this period.
It was noted that if any invoice falls within the Section 10A period, it does not prohibit or debar an operational creditor from ever initiating a Section 9 application, and Section 9 can legally be initiated by an operational creditor if other invoices pertain to periods before or later than the Section 10A stipulated time frame.
NCLAT Held
The NCLAT observed that, even after excluding invoices falling within the Section 10A period, the cumulative amount of default was above the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore. The Appellant correctly filed a Section 9 application, and it was valid on the part of the Appellant to issue a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC.
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority erred on both accounts by not considering the exclusion of one solitary invoice falling within the Section 10A period and treating the demand notice as not deemed valid under Section 8 of the IBC. Therefore, the impugned order was to be set aside, and the original petition was to be restored before the Adjudicating Authority.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court -V in CP IB No. 309/ND/2022, dated 16.10.2023 (para 40) reversed
- Naresh Chaudhary v. Sterling Enamelled Wires Private Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2023, dated 16-8-2023]
- Raghvendra Joshi v Axis Bank [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) 914 of 2023] (para 38) followed
- Ramesh Kymal v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power (P.) Ltd. [2021] 124 taxmann.com 226 (para 34)
- Yatra Online v. Ezeego One Travel and Tours Ltd. [ Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 387 of 2023] (para 35) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Naresh Chaudhary v. Sterling Enamelled Wires Private Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2023, dated 16-8-2023] (para 6)
- Ezeego One Travel & Tours Ltd. v. Yatra Online Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 2889 of 2023, dated 2-5-2023] (para 7)
- Yatra Online v. Ezeego One Travel and Tours Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 387 of 2023] (para 7)
- B. Sreekala v. Al Sadiq Sweets [2022] 139 taxmann.com 501 (NCLAT – Chennai) (para 12)
- Ramesh Kymal v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power (P.) Ltd. [2021] 124 taxmann.com 226/164 SCL 455 (SC) (para 12)
- Yatra Online Ltd. v. Ezeego One Travel [CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 387/2023] (para 12)
- Raghavendra Joshi v. Axis Bank Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 914 of 2023] (para 37).
The post CIRP Plea Not Barred If Other Dues Exceed Threshold Despite Section 10A Invoice | NCLAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
