Case Details

Case Name: Radiant Digitek Network Limited vs. Srishtivinayak Entertainment Media Private Limited

Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Jaipur Bench

Case Number: CP No. (IB)-96/9/JPR/2025

Date of Order: 26 May 2026

Presiding Members: Ms. Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member), Ms. Kavita Bhatnagar (Technical Member)

Period of Dispute: Services rendered from 01 October 2023 to June 2025

Parties Involved

Petitioner/Operational Creditor: Radiant Digitek Network Limited

  • Address: G-247, Road No. 5, Indraprastha Industrial Area, Kota-324005, Rajasthan
  • Business: Cable television broadcasting and Multi System Operator providing cable network and placement services

Respondent/Corporate Debtor: Srishtivinayak Entertainment Media Private Limited

  • Address: Plot No. B-37,38,39, Kamal Ratan Tower, 10-B Scheme, Gopalpura Bypass, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012
  • Incorporation Date: 16 September 2020
  • Registered with: Registrar of Companies, Jaipur
  • Authorized Share Capital: ₹1,00,000
  • Paid-Up Share Capital: ₹1,00,000
  • Business: Television channel operator ("Sach Bedhadak" channel)

Legal Representatives:

  • For Operational Creditor: Prabhansh Sharma, Adv.; Nagendra Singh Adha, Adv.; Rohini, Adv.
  • For Corporate Debtor: Prateek Kedawat, Adv.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

Operational Creditor's Claims:

  • Formal agreement dated 04 July 2024 for broadcasting and channel placement services from 01 October 2023 to 30 September 2025
  • Corporate Debtor liable to pay placement charges for continuous services
  • Total outstanding dues: ₹2,03,57,813/- comprising:
  • Principal amount: ₹1,85,85,000/-
  • Interest: ₹17,72,813/- at 18% per annum
  • Invoices raised including Invoice No. C-166/24-25 dated 17 December 2024 and subsequent invoices from January 2025 to June 2025
  • Cheques issued by CD (dated 30.12.2024, 03.01.2025, 24.07.2025) were dishonored
  • Alleged acknowledgment communication dated 23 August 2025 admitted liability and sought time till October 2025
  • Statutory demand notice (Form-3) dispatched via courier (DTDC Consignment No. V97370104) delivered on 11 August 2025
  • Bank certificate under Section 9(3)(c) of IBC certifying non-receipt of payment

Corporate Debtor's Defense:

  • Serious bona fide pre-existing dispute existed prior to demand notice issuance
  • Initial informal arrangement from October 2023 without finalized commercial terms
  • Communication dated 31 December 2024 informed OC that continuation of services for second year was commercially unviable and unacceptable
  • OC unilaterally continued services from January 2025 to June 2025 without CD's consent
  • Invoices were retrospectively raised, including consolidated invoice dated 17 December 2024 covering period 01.10.2023 to 31.12.2024
  • Agreement contemplated monthly advance payment, not retrospective billing
  • Blank security cheques were allegedly filled by OC without authority
  • OC accepted cash payments but still raised inflated invoices
  • Alleged acknowledgment dated 23.08.2025 sent from HR email account controlled by Mr. Ravi Kumar Meena (FIR lodged against him on 24.09.2025 for misuse of company documents)
  • Discrepancies in courier receipt dates challenge valid service of demand notice
  • Non-compliance with Regulation 2B of CIRP Regulations 2016 (failure to annex GST returns GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B)

Findings & Observations

Tribunal's Analysis:

  • Agreement dated 04.07.2024 prima facie reflects commercial arrangement
  • CD's communication dated 31.12.2024 significant as it predates substantial invoices for January 2025 onwards
  • Disputes relate to:
  • Continuation/discontinuation of services
  • Mode and timing of billing
  • Retrospective imposition of liability
  • Reconciliation of accounts
  • Scope of contractual obligations
  • Authenticity of acknowledgment communication dated 23.08.2025 disputed and requires detailed evidence examination beyond summary jurisdiction
  • Allegations regarding cheque misuse, cash payments, and account reconciliation involve disputed questions of fact
  • Dispute cannot be termed as sham, illusory, or moonshine defense
  • Defense appears plausible requiring further investigation per Mobilox test
  • Provisions of Section 9 cannot be invoked as substitute for civil adjudication where contractual disputes exist

Legal Precedents Cited:

  • Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. (2017) - Plausible pre-existing dispute warrants rejection
  • Ram Niwas Bars Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Sharma Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (NCLT Jaipur) - Section 9 not substitute for debt recovery
  • Monte Bianco Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. Adison Granito Pvt. Ltd. (NCLT Ahmedabad) - Emphasizes proper substantiation of claims
  • Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank - Distinguished as Section 7 case with different considerations

Final Ruling & Enforcement

Decision: CP (IB) No. 96/9/JPR/2025 filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is rejected.

Reasoning: Existence of pre-existing dispute between parties prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 8 of the Code. The disputes involve serious contractual matters requiring adjudication before appropriate forum, not suitable for summary proceedings under IBC.