Case Details

Case Name: Naxnova Technologies Private Limited vs. Hero MotoCorp Limited

Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-III

Case Number: IB – 547(ND)/2025

Date of Order: 19 May 2026

Nature of Case: Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Parties Involved

Petitioner/Operational Creditor: Naxnova Technologies Private Limited (CIN: U74110MH2011PTC222752)

Respondent/Corporate Debtor: Hero MotoCorp Limited (CIN: L35911DL1984PLC017354)

Legal Representatives:

  • For Applicant: Mr. Ramji Srinivisan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek Shetty, Mr. Asadulla Thangal, Ms. Sonali Jain, Mr. Akash Manwani, Mr. Himanshu Kalwani, Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Shefali Munde, Ms. Anjali Singariya, Advs.
  • For Respondent: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Misha, Mr. Vaijyan, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Shruti Sabhrawal, Mr. Anant, Mr. Sahaj, Ms. Diksha, Mr. Harsh Gerbani, Ms. Shruti Poddan, Mr. Harshit Chaudhary, Advs.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

The Operational Creditor (Naxnova Technologies) filed the petition on 20 September 2025 alleging non-payment of operational debt amounting to ₹22,50,80,911/- (Principal Amount) along with interest @18% p.a. accrued till 18 September 2025 (₹1,42,79,476/-), totaling ₹23,93,60,387/-. The alleged dues arise from supplies made under a Vendor Supply Agreement dated 03 September 2009, as amended by a Letter Agreement dated 14 November 2013, and various Purchase Orders.

The Corporate Debtor (Hero MotoCorp) raised two main preliminary objections regarding maintainability:

1. Multiple Demand Notices: The respondent argued that the operational creditor issued two demand notices - one dated 13 July 2025 and a second dated 09 October 2025. They contended that the first notice was abandoned by the issuance of the second notice, and that issuing multiple demand notices violates the strict procedural requirements of the IBC.

2. Pre-Existing Dispute and Arbitration: The respondent asserted that there exists a substantial, bona fide, and pre-existing dispute between the parties concerning:

  • Persistent and unresolved disputes about the quality of goods supplied and alleged breaches of contractual obligations by Naxnova
  • These very disputes are already sub judice before a duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to arbitration proceedings initiated under the Agreement
  • Hero MotoCorp terminated the Agreement between parties and commenced Arbitration on 02 June 2025 due to quality issues
  • Naxnova made a claim for the alleged dues in the pending arbitration on 17 June 2025, nearly a month prior to the issuance of the first Demand Notice

Findings & Observations

The NCLT delineated the contours of jurisdiction exercised while examining maintainability of an application under Section 9 of the Code. The Tribunal observed:

  • The statutory scheme does not contemplate a roving or adjudicatory enquiry into disputed questions of fact at the pre-admission and pre-notice stage
  • The scope of consideration at this stage is circumscribed and summary in nature, confined to examining whether the application is complete in all respects, whether there exists an operational debt above the prescribed threshold, whether the application is within limitation, and whether there exists any legal bar to its institution
  • The distinction between "maintainability" and "adjudication on merits" is well recognized - maintainability pertains to foundational legal thresholds while matters requiring appreciation of evidence fall outside this limited scrutiny
  • An application under Section 9 cannot be rejected at the threshold based on disputed factual assertions raised by the Corporate Debtor
  • The objections raised by the Corporate Debtor (existence of pre-existing dispute, pendency of arbitration proceedings, allegations of suppression of material facts) are, in substance, issues going to the merits and statutory thresholds governing admission or rejection, not to maintainability in the strict procedural sense
  • The determination contemplated under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) requires examination of the defence raised and supporting material, which cannot be undertaken in a summary manner at the pre-notice stage

Final Ruling & Enforcement

The NCLT found that the present Application satisfies the threshold requirements of maintainability and cannot be rejected at this stage on the grounds urged by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held:

  • The objections raised by the Respondent-Corporate Debtor can be raised by filing a detailed reply affidavit and be considered at the time of arguments
  • The Application shall proceed for consideration on merits in accordance with law, upon issuance of notice and completion of pleadings
  • Notice is issued to the Respondent-Corporate Debtor
  • The Respondent is directed to file a detailed reply affidavit within ten days
  • The matter is listed for further hearing on 05 June 2026

Signatories:

  • Shri Ravindra Chaturvedi, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
  • Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)