AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER Delivered on 14/01/2026
The case is fixed for pronouncement of the order. The order is pronounced in open Court vide separate sheet.
Sd/- Sd/-MAN MOHAN GUPTA BRAJENDRA MANI TRIPATHI MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Neeraj
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
(Filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules 2016)
IN THE MATTER OF: M/S MEDIOINT LIFESCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED Almin Extrusion Through: Mr.Punit Harivadan Patel, Partner Registered Address At: 876/2, Gidc Industrial Estate, Makarpura, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390010 …Applicant/Operational Creditor Vs.
M/s Medioint Lifescience Private Limited Registered Address At: Plot No. 260-A, Sector-111, Industrial Growth Center, Pithampur, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, India - 454775 …Respondent/Corporate Debtor Order pronounced on: 14.01.2026 Coram: Mr. Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Hon’ble Member (J) Mr. Man Mohan Gupta, Hon’ble Member (T) Appearance:
For the Applicant : Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv For the Respondent : Ex-Parte (Dated:11.06.2025)
O R D E R
This Company Petition has been filed dated 22.11.2024 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the IBC, 2016”) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”), by Almin Extrusion, through partner, Mr. Punit Harivadan Patel, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Operational Creditor’) seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘the CIRP’) against M/s Medioint Lifescience Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporate Debtor’) for having committed a default in payment of its outstanding debts amounting Rs. 1,19 Crore including interest.
Perusal of Part I of the Form 5 sets out of the details of the Operational Creditor. It is averred that the Operational Creditor is a partnership firm named as Almin Extrusion (“the Applicant”), PAN No: AACFA5852G, which is represented by Mr. Punit Harivadan Patel, partner, with its office situated at 876/2, GIDC Industrial Estate, Makarpura, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390010.
(Copy of the Authority letter issued by Partner's meeting dated 15.10.2024 authorizing Mr. Punit Harivadan Patel & copy of PAN card of the Applicant/OC are annexed under ANNEXURE B & D of the petition, respectively.)
Perusal of Part II of the Form 5 indicates that the Corporate Debtor is M/s Medioint Lifescience Private Limited having CIN No. U24230MP2020PTC052158. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated at Plot No. 260-A, Sector-III, Industrial Growth Center, Pithampur, Dhar, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, India, 454775.
(Copy of the master data of M/s Medioint Lifescience Private Limited, Corporate Debtor is annexed under ANNEXURE A of the petition, respectively.)
The Applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of Cosmetic and Pharmaceutical Packaging Tube, Laminated Tubes, Aluminium Collapsible Tubes etc. Whereas, the CD is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Topical preparation (Drug and Cosmetic) products.
Perusal of Part III of the Form 5 indicates that the applicant has nominated Mr. Dharit Kishorbhai Shah, Insolvency Professional, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00993/2017-2018/11640 to act as Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”). The proposed IRP has given written communication as per the requirement of Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules,2016.
(Written consent in Form 2 issued by Mr Mr. Dharit Kishorbhai Shah is annexed under ANNEXURE C of the petition, respectively.)
Perusal of Part IV of the Form 5 the total amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 1,19,15,339.00/- (Rupees One Crore Nineteen Lakh Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Nine Only) including principal amounting Rs. 1,12,73,149.00/- and the balance amount towards interest calculated at the rate of 18% p.a.
(Copy of Working Computation of the outstanding dues is annexed under ANNEXURE I of the petition, respectively.)
The date of default is mentioned as 01.05.2024 in terms of the tax invoice raised by the OC, being the due date for the last invoice.
The Applicant’s case in brief is:
The Applicant submits that both parties engaged in continuous business transactions involving multiple purchase orders where the goods supplied by the Applicant and were duly accepted and consumed by the CD without any dispute as to quality or quantity.
The Applicant submits that the CD approached them for supply of Aluminium Collapsible Printed Tubes and Laminated Tubes. During the subsistence of the business transactions the Applicant periodically supplied goods as per the CD specific requirements under the purchase orders. The goods were accepted and utilised without demur. Against such supplies, the Applicant raised various Tax Invoices, which were duly accepted by the CD.
The Applicant submits that 32 Tax Invoices raised, payments were received against 9 invoices, while 23 invoices remain unpaid in violation of agreed terms. The particulars of invoices raised, payments received, and outstanding dues are detailed hereunder:
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Amount | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Total 32 Tax Invoices Raised | Rs. 1,55,42,779/- | Total amount claimed towards goods supplied. |
| 2. | 9 Invoices cleared by the CD | Rs. 42,69,630/- | CD has only made the payment of sald amount till date from the total of 32 Invoices. |
| 3. | 23 Outstanding Inovices | Rs. 1,12,73,149/- | Total Principal amount outstanding out of the 32 raised to the Invoices CD. |
(Copies of the Purchase Orders issued by CD in favour of OC along with copies of the outstanding Tax invoices due and payable by the CD along with lorry receipts and e-way bills are annexed under ANNEXURE E (‘COLLY’) of the petition, respectively.) (Further a copy of the paid Tax-Invoices along with its PO, lorry receipts, e-way bills and a copy of Bank Certificate are annexed under ANNEXURE-F (‘COLLY') of the petition, respectively.)
The Applicant submits that despite repeated reminders the outstanding dues remain unpaid. The Applicant issued a Legal cum Demand notice to the CD on 26.10.2024, which evoked no payment or substantive response.
The Applicant submits that the demand notice in Forms 3 and 4 dated 26.10.2024 was served on the CD via speed post on 26.10.2024, and the same came to be returned to the Applicant with remark 'Item Returned Refused' on 29.10.2024. And further on its Key Managerial Personnel via email on 26.10.2024 (delivered), in compliance with Rule 5(2)(a) & (b) of the IBBI (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Further submits that the CD neither repaid the dues nor raised any dispute within the stipulated 10 days under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016. Hence this application.
(Copy of the demand notice dated 26.10.2024 along with speed post tracking report and copy of the service email dated 26.10.2024 are annexed under ANNEXURE G ('COLLY') & H of the petition, respectively.)
The Corporate Debtor/Respondent neither appeared nor filed any objection despite several opportunities and issuance of notices. The matter was adjourned on multiple occasions to afford the Respondent an opportunity to appear and file a reply. However, no reply on behalf of the Respondent filed. Accordingly, on 11.06.2025 this Adjudicating Authority, closed the Respondent’s right to file a reply and proceed them ex parte.
Analysis and Observation
We have heard the submission of Ld. Counsel and perused the records and the primary issue for adjudication is below:
Whether the Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code was validly served upon the Corporate Debtor, considering the postal remark "Refused"?
We have observed that Section 8(1) of the IBC, 2016 mandates the delivery of a demand notice and Rule 5 of the Adjudicating Authority Rules prescribes the mode of delivery, which includes registered post, speed post, or electronic mail. The relevant extract is given below:
Section 8: Insolvency resolution by operational creditor.
*8. (1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debt or copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational creditor—
existence of a dispute, [if any, or] record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute;
the [payment] of unpaid operational debt—
by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or
(ii)by sending an attested copy of record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by the corporate debtor.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, a “demand notice” means a notice served by an operational creditor to the corporate debtor demanding [payment] of the operational debt in respect of which the default has occurred.
In this regard the Applicant/Operational Creditor has placed on record the postal tracking report showing the status "Item Returned Refused." which is shown below:
Further, the Applicant successfully delivered the notice via email to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), the relevant extract of the email is below:
The Supreme Court in Visa Coke Limited v. Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited (2025 INSC 597), wherein held that service of a Section 8 demand notice on the KMP of a company at its registered office constitutes valid service on the corporate debtor. The Court emphasised that procedural technicalities should not thwart substantive justice under the IBC, 2016 where the debtor had actual knowledge of the claim. We hold that the Demand Notice was validly served on the CD and the deemed date of service is 29.10.2024 (date of refusal). Further 10-day period for reply expired on 08.11.2024., on the basis of relevant fact and ruling the issue answered in positive.
We have noted that the Applicant/OC has placed on record the Ledger Account demonstrating that the default exceeds the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore as mandated under Section 4 of the IBC, 2016. The relevant extract from the ledger is reproduced below:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited reported in (2018) 1 SCC 353 has held that the Adjudicating Authority, when examining an application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:
(a)Whether there is an "operational debt"?
(b)Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid?
(c)Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid operational debt in relation to such dispute?" If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to be rejected. Apart from the above, the Adjudicating Authority must follow the mandate of Section 9, as outlined above, and in particular the mandate of Section 9(5) of the Code, and admit or reject the application, as the case may be, depending upon the factors mentioned in Section 9(5) of the Act.
In our considered view, the Applicant has been able to comply with all the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations (Supra). Further, the Applicant has established that he has supplied the tangible goods to the Corporate Debtor and raised proper invoices along with the lorry receipts (proving delivery), E-way bills (proving transit) and the Respondent/CD has failed to make the payments due to the Applicant/Operational Creditor. The Bank Certificate also confirms no credit entries matching the outstanding amount.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the position of Law, as well as the judicial precedents cited, we are of the view that the Applicant/OC has successfully brought home on the following points on record:
There is a default of payment of Rs. 1,12,73,149/-.
A Demand notice dated 26.10.2024 was sent to the Respondent/CD which was refused.
The CD has failed to pay the defaulted amount.
There is no pre-existing dispute pending before filing of the petition.
This petition has been filed within the limitation.
Keeping all these facts and legal position in view the petition filed by the Operational Creditor, is required to be Admitted under Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016.
In the present case, the operational creditor has proposed Mr. Dharit Kishorbhai Shah, Insolvency Professional, to act as Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) and hence this Tribunal appoints Mr. Dharit Kishorbhai Shah having Reg No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00993/2017-2018/11640, (Email: [email protected]) whose AFA is valid till 30.06.27 as the “Interim Resolution Professional” (IRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor. The IRP appointed shall take in this regard such other and further steps as are required under the Code, more specifically in terms of Section 15, 17,18 of the Code and file the report within 20 days before this Bench. The powers of the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor shall stand superseded as a consequence of the initiation of the CIRP in relation to the Corporate Debtor in terms of the provisions of IBC, 2016.
As a consequence of the Petition being admitted in terms of Section 9 (5) of the Code, the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14 shall apply in relation to the Corporate Debtor as under:
“(1)Subject to provisions of subsections (2) and (3) on the insolvency commencement date the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare prohibiting all of the following namely:
a. The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the respondent including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
b. Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the respondent any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
c. Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the respondent in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
d. The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the respondent.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license or a similar grant or right during moratorium period;
(2)The supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.
(2A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the Corporate Debtor and manage the operations of such Corporate Debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such Corporate Debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified.
(3)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to (a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangement as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority; (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.
(4)The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: Provided that where at any time during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan under sub Section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or Liquidation Order, as the case may be.”
The Operational Creditor is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) to the Interim Resolution Professional to meet out the expenses to perform the functions assigned to him in accordance to Regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
Based on the above terms, the Petition Stands Admitted in terms of Section 9(5) of IBC, 2016 and the moratorium shall come in to effect as of this date. A copy of the Order shall be communicated to the Operational Creditor as well as to the Corporate Debtor above named by the Registry. In addition, a copy of the Order shall also be forwarded to IBBI for its records. Further, the Interim Resolution Professional above named be also furnished with copy of this Order forthwith by the Registry, who will also communicate the initiation of the CIRP in relation to the Corporate Debtor to the Registrar of Companies concerned.
Accordingly, Company Petition (IB) No. 69 of 2024 stands allowed and The Respondent/Corporate Debtor is, therefore, admitted into the CIRP in terms of the Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016.