Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court-I, Ahmedabad
Order Date: 30 June 2026
Case Overview
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad bench comprising Member (Judicial) Shammi Khan and Member (Technical) Sanjeev Sharma dismissed CP(IB) No.121/9/AHM/2022 filed by M.K. Aircon Systems Private Limited (Operational Creditor) against Kunal Structure (India) Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for an operational debt of Rs 2,18,79,650 allegedly arising from supply and installation of industrial air-conditioning equipment at ESIC Chennai and IIT Kharagpur projects.
The Operational Creditor claimed that despite supplying goods and services worth Rs 16,51,26,754 pursuant to purchase orders dated 08.01.2016, 08.09.2017, 29.01.2018 and 09.05.2018, and receiving payments of Rs 14,32,47,105, the balance amount remained unpaid despite repeated reminders. The Corporate Debtor contested the petition, arguing that genuine pre-existing disputes existed regarding short supply of materials (claiming Rs 1,66,177 for short supply), discrepancies in invoicing (claiming Rs 3,26,010 for accessories not supplied), differences between invoiced amounts and actual deliveries (claiming Rs 14,75,582), incomplete execution of work, and pending defects at project sites.
The tribunal examined extensive documentation including purchase orders, invoices, delivery notes, email communications, ledger accounts, and additional affidavits filed by both parties. The Corporate Debtor presented contemporaneous email evidence from July 2019 onwards demonstrating that disputes regarding incomplete work, overcharging, and supply discrepancies were raised prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code on 08.02.2022.
Final Outcome
The NCLT dismissed the insolvency petition, holding that a genuine pre-existing dispute existed between the parties prior to the issuance of the demand notice. The tribunal found that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor were not "moonshine disputes" but were supported by contemporaneous records including email correspondence, debit adjustments, and documentary evidence. The court allowed IA No.740 of 2025 (filed for placing additional documents on record) but held that these documents did not conclusively establish absence of dispute. The order explicitly states that it does not preclude either party from pursuing remedies available before appropriate forums in accordance with law.
Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Operational Debt Dispute, Pre-existing Dispute