Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Principal Bench in New Delhi heard a petition filed by Beam Infotech Private Limited (Operational Creditor) against Invertek Energy Solution Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for recovery of an outstanding operational debt of ₹1,06,00,959.75 (One Crore Six Lakh Nine Hundred Fifty-Nine and Seventy-Five Paise) as of 12 December 2025.

Beam Infotech, engaged in manufacturing electronic appliances (CIN U72200HR2013PTC065234), claimed that Invertek Energy, a manufacturer of power and solar energy solutions (CIN U27201DL2023PTC411913), had defaulted on payments for goods supplied pursuant to work orders. The Operational Creditor alleged that despite supplying goods and receiving bounced cheques (dated between 13 July 2025 and 4 August 2025 totaling ₹56,32,563), followed by a demand notice under Section 8 of IBC on 16 December 2025, the debt remained unpaid. The Corporate Debtor replied on 27 December 2025 denying the claim and raising disputes regarding quality of goods supplied.

The Corporate Debtor contended that the petition was not maintainable as the goods supplied were defective and did not meet contractual specifications. They argued that under the purchase order terms (Order No. INV1/PO/24-25/781 dated 8 March 2025), the credit period of 60 days would commence only upon receipt of goods in acceptable condition and after invoices were reflected on the GST portal. They presented evidence including email communications (from July to October 2025) and Minutes of Meeting dated 21 July 2025 discussing quality issues and return of approximately 4,317 defective PCB cards. The Corporate Debtor maintained these disputes existed prior to the demand notice.

The tribunal examined the legal framework under Sections 8 and 9 of IBC, particularly the definition of operational debt and the requirements for admitting an application. It referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software (2018) which established that the Adjudicating Authority must reject an application if a dispute exists prior to the demand notice, provided it is not spurious or illusory.

Final Outcome

The NCLT dismissed the petition (CP (IB)–185(PB)/2026) after finding that a genuine pre-existing dispute regarding quality of goods, return of materials, and account reconciliation was evident from correspondence and documents exchanged between the parties before the demand notice was issued on 16 December 2025. The tribunal concluded that the disputes were not patently feeble and required further investigation beyond the scope of Section 9 proceedings. Consequently, CIRP was not initiated against Invertek Energy Solution Private Limited.

Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Operational Debt Dispute, Quality Dispute