Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 09-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – M/S Jayhind Steel Traders (operational creditor); Respondents – Anshul Vashistha & Anr., representing Saturn Prefab India Private Limited (the corporate debtor) and its group company Saturn Infra.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order dated 30‑09‑2020, which had set aside the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order dated 13‑03‑2020 that admitted a Section 9 petition and appointed an interim resolution professional.
  • Background: The appellant filed a Section 9 petition seeking initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The petition claimed a principal amount of Rs 1,56,25,154, which with interest rose to Rs 1,81,61,422. The NCLT admitted the petition on 13‑03‑2020. The suspended director of the debtor appealed to NCLAT, which on 10‑09‑2020 ordered the debtor to submit a detailed chart of all invoices and the debtor’s comments.
  • Invoice Chart Details: Submitted on 16‑09‑2020, the chart distinguished:
  • Admitted invoices: Rs 1,50,12,839
  • Fabricated invoices: Rs 1,01,72,864
  • Payments made by the debtor: Rs 94,07,629
  • Additional payment by Saturn Infra: Rs 27,09,322
  • Deduction claimed for rejected material: Rs 30,00,000 (based on an e‑mail dated 29‑03‑2018 stating “rejected materials are by UT testing still there in our site”).
  • Appellant’s Submissions: Argued that the chart double‑counts the Saturn Infra payment, that the Rs 30 lakh deduction lacks evidentiary support, and that even after adjusting legitimate payments, the outstanding default exceeds the Rs 1,00,000 threshold that triggers CIRP proceedings.
  • Respondent’s Submissions: Contended that the amounts represent a running account, that a pre‑existing dispute existed, and that the appellant should have filed a contra‑chart to dispute the debtor’s figures; in the absence of such a chart, NCLAT was justified in setting aside the NCLT order.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court held that NCLAT failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to submit a contra‑chart, thereby depriving it of full facts. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCLAT order and restored the NCLAT appeal (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 656 of 2020) to be decided afresh.
  • The Court stayed the effect and operation of the NCLT order dated 13‑03‑2020 pending the fresh determination by NCLAT.
  • The Court directed NCLAT to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
  • The appeal was partly allowed, and any pending applications were ordered disposed of.

Topics: Insolvency, Court Order