M/S NPV Global FZ LLE, UAE vs M/S Sneh Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Per: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Judicial Member

The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by M/s NPV Global FZ LLE ('Petitioner'/ 'Operational Creditor') through its Owner, namely Mr. Mayank Bhasin seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') in respect of Sneh Polymers Private Limited (CIN: U46691RJ2019PTC067238) ('Respondent'/ 'Corporate Debtor'), on account of default in payment of Rs. 2,64,10,512.24/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty-Four Lakh Ten Thousand Five Hundred Twelve and Twenty-Four Paise Only).

The Operational Debt produced in Part IV of the Petition, is reproduced here as following:

The Petitioner is a Free Zone Limited Liability Establishment (FZ LLE) engaged in the business of general trading, including import-export of PP Granules, having registered address at Fujairah - Twin Towers, P.O. Box 4422, Fujairah (UAE). It is operated under ownership of Mr. Mayank Bhasin.

The Respondent is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 on 04.12.2019, having registered address at Khasra No.1849, NH-8, Dudu Teh. Dudu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India-303008.

The Petition has been filed on the basis of the following set of facts:

The Petitioner is dealing in the business of general trading, including import-export of PP Granules. It engaged in the supply of the goods to the Respondent in daily course of business and raised 4 tax invoices from 24.12.2025 to 29.01.2026 for an aggregate invoice value of Rs. 2,64,10,512.24/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty-Four Lakh Ten Thousand Five Hundred Twelve and Twenty-Four Paise Only) with a credit period of 60 days from the date of invoice.

The details of the invoices are reproduced as follows:

The Petitioner submitted that the first and earliest defaults had arisen in respect of Invoice No. NPV/SPPL/25-003, which fell due on 23.02.2026, and Invoice No. NPV/SPPL/25-004, which fell due on 01.03.2026. Upon that the Petitioner issued a demand notice dated 10.03.2026 to the Respondent, bearing Ref. No. SJ/IBC/NPV/SNEH/2026/001, under Section 8 of the Code, which was duly issued and served by registered post and email upon the Respondent at its registered office on 10.03.2026. According to this notice both invoices had already matured and remained unpaid as on 10.03.2026. The amount in default as on the date of issuance of the demand notice stood at Rs. 1,32,05,256.12/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Two Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six and Twelve Paise Only). The remaining two invoices, bearing Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-008 and NPV/SPPL/26-010, were also remain unpaid as on 10.03.2026; however, their respective 60-day credit periods had not expired by 10.03.2026. Thus, the said two invoices became overdue subsequent to the issuance of the demand notice dated 10.03.2026.

The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent neither repaid the amount nor communicate any pre-existing dispute or demonstrate any repayment within the mandatory period of 10 days, which was ended on 27.03.2026, as the Demand Notice was delivered to the Respondent on 17.03.2026. 5.4 Thereafter, it is submitted that the Director of the Respondent Mr. Vishal Bansal, admitted the debt through its email dated 16.03.2026, and expressed its inability to pay the outstanding amount and further requested to grant time of 6 to 8 months for repayment. 5.5 Further, the Petitioner, through its Advocate, sent 2 reminder email dated 28.03.2026 and 31.03.2026 to the Respondent upon which Mr. Vishal Bansal, the Director of the Respondent, replied through email vide dated 01.04.2026 and declined to pay the outstanding operational debt. 5.6 Relying upon the replies of the Respondent, the Petitioner submitted that, there is a commercial relation between the Petitioner and Respondent in respect of goods supplied to the Respondent under the commercial invoices and no pre-existing dispute exists.

The Petitioner further submitted that, as per the Account Statement dated 02.04.2026, all four invoices had subsequently fallen into default, and the total amount in default stood at Rs. 2,64,10,512.24/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty-Four Lakh Ten Thousand Five Hundred Twelve and Twenty-Four Paise Only).

The Petitioner has proposed Mrs. Garima Diggiwal (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02018/2020-2021/13158) to be appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the present matter. Mrs. Garima Diggiwal has provided her written communication in Form 2 dated 25.03.2026 consenting to act as IRP.

The Petitioner has filed an affidavit in compliance of Section 9(3)(b) of the Code stating that neither payment was made nor notice of dispute was received from the Corporate Debtor.

The submissions made by the Respondent are as follows:

The Respondent, through its director, replied to the demand notice and acknowledged Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 dated 24.12.2025 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 dated 31.12.2025 as trade payables. The Respondent further expressed its intention to repay the said amounts within a period of six to eight months. However, the Respondent stated that the aforementioned acknowledgment was limited to the receipt of goods covered under the said two invoices and did not amount to an admission of liability for the entire claim.

The Respondent further contended that, upon subsequent processing, the goods supplied were found to be poor and sub-standard in quality and were consequently rejected by its end customers. It was therefore contended that the invoice value was liable to be reduced on account of the alleged poor and sub-standard quality of the goods, and that, after such reduction, the amount would fall below the threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code. 8.3 Further, the Respondent denied its liability to pay the amount claimed under Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-008 dated 17.01.2026 and NPV/SPPL/26-010 dated 29.01.2026, and denied that any part of the said sum is “payable” within the meaning of Section 3(12) read with Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, the said sum being disputed. 8.4 The Respondent further submitted that, in respect of Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 and NPV/SPPL/25-004, it was engaged in bona fide settlement discussions with the Petitioner. It is further stated that the settlement proposal would be placed before this Adjudicating Authority and that, upon execution and part-performance of the proposed settlement, the Petitioner would withdraw the present Petition.

The Respondent further contended that the Petition, insofar as it related to the Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 dated 24.12.2025 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 dated 31.12.2025, is premature in view of the ongoing settlement engagement, and insofar as it related to Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-008 dated 17.01.2026 and NPV/SPPL/26-010 dated 29.01.2026, is barred by the existence of a genuine, bona fide, pre-existing dispute as to quality within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Code.

On the above grounds, the Respondent prayed for decline to admit the present Company Petition (IB) No. 40/9/JPR/2026 to the CIRP and grant the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to place on record a structured, Adjudicating Authority-supervised settlement in respect of the Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 dated 24.12.2025 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 dated 31.12.2025, and liberty to file an additional affidavit with the material particulars of the dispute in the matter of Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-008 dated 17.01.2026 and NPV/SPPL/26-010 dated 29.01.2026, and to keep the present Petition in abeyance during such period.

We have heard the Learned counsels for the parties and have perused the averments made in the Petition and the Reply. The observations of the Adjudicating Authority are followed as under: -

Before we proceed with the facts of the present case, the statutory framework regarding the Application under Section 9 of the Code needs to be recapitulated. An application under Section 9 of the Code can only be filed after the delivery of a demand notice as provided under Section 8 of the Code. Section 8 of the Code requires the Operational Creditor, upon the occurrence of default, to deliver a Demand Notice for unpaid Operational Debt. Furthermore, the Section 8(2) specifies that the Corporate Debtor must, within 10 days of receiving the Demand Notice, inform the Operational Creditor of any existing dispute.

Under Section 9(1), if Operational Creditor does not receive payment from the Corporate Debtor or notice of the dispute under Sub-section (2) of Section 8, may file an application under Section 9(1) of the Code. Section 9(1) and (5) are reproduced as follows:

In the present case, the Petitioner is engaged in the supply and trade of polymer products. In the ordinary course of business, the Petitioner supplied goods to the Respondent from time to time and raised invoices on agreed credit terms of 60 days from the date of invoice. Pursuant to such supply, the Petitioner raised a total of 4 invoices during the period from 24.12.2025 to 29.01.2026. The Respondent, however, failed to make payment towards these invoices.

The Petitioner issued a demand notice on 10.03.2026, bearing Ref. No. SJ/IBC/NPV/SNEH/2026/001, served it upon the Respondent by registered post at its registered office and through email dated 16.03.2026.

In reply to that, the Respondent, through its director, replied to the Demand Notice by email dated 16.03.2026, expressly acknowledged Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 dated 24.12.2025 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 dated 31.12.2025 as trade payables, and sought six to eight months to make payment, without disclosing any pre-existing disputes concerning aforementioned two invoices. 9.6 Relying on this reply, the Petitioner submitted that a commercial relationship existed between the parties in respect of the goods supplied under the invoices, and that no pre-existing dispute existed. Further, the Petitioner, through its Advocate, sent two reminder emails dated 28.03.2026 and 31.03.2026 to the Respondent. In response to that, the Director of Respondent, replied by email dated 01.04.2026 and declined to pay the outstanding operational debt. 9.7 It is further submitted that all 4 invoices had become due by 02.04.2026, out of them only Invoice no. NPV/SPPL/25-003 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 had fallen due when demand notice was issued on 10.03.2026. The remaining two invoices became due only on 18.03.2026 and 29.03.2026.

The Respondent further submitted through its reply in this instant Petition that, in respect of Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 and NPV/SPPL/25-004, it was engaged in bona fide settlement discussions with the Petitioner. It is further stated that the settlement proposal would be placed before this Adjudicating Authority, and once executed and partly performed, the Petitioner would withdraw the present petition. Further, in respect of Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-008 dated 17.01.2026 and NPV/SPPL/26-010 dated 29.01.2026, the Respondent raised a dispute regarding the quality of goods and the contracted specification warranted by the Petitioner.

The Respondent further contended that the Petition, insofar as it relates to Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 and NPV/SPPL/25-004, is premature in view of the ongoing settlement engagement; and insofar as it relates to Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-008 and NPV/SPPL/26-010, is barred by the existence of a genuine, bona fide, pre-existing dispute as to quality, within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Code.

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, under Section 9 of the Code, praying for initiation of CIRP against Sneh Polymers Private Limited the Corporate Debtor, on account of default in payment of a sum of Rs. 2,64,10,512.24/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty-Four Lakh Ten Thousand Five Hundred Twelve and Paise Twenty-Four Only) (Statement of Account Balance - All 4 Invoices). However, only Invoice no. NPV/SPPL/25-003 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 had fallen due when demand notice was issued on 10.03.2026. Therefore, the finding of default for the purpose of the present proceedings may be confined to the first two invoices, aggregating to Rs. 1,32,05,256.12/-. This amount independently exceeds the statutory threshold. The subsequent maturity of the remaining invoices may not be relied upon to validate the earlier demand made in respect of them.

It is an admitted position that the Respondent received supplies of polymer products from the Petitioner during the period 24.12.2025 to 29.01.2026 against 4 tax invoices. 9.12 It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent has not disputed the supply of goods or the quantum of outstanding amount raised in Invoice Nos. NPV/SPPL/25-003 dated 24.12.2025 and NPV/SPPL/25-004 dated 31.12.2025. The quality disputed raised by the Respondent requires a reasoned determination. No contemporaneous communication, test report, customer rejection, debt note or other material pretending the demand notice has been produced to establish a dispute concerning the goods covered by the first two invoices. On the contrary, those invoices were acknowledged as trade payables in the email dated 16.03.2026. The quality objection, therefore, does not disclose a genuine pre-existing dispute concerning the admitted amount of Rs. 1,32,05,256.12/-. For ease of reference, the communication dated 16.03.2026 sent by the Respondent in response to the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code is reproduced hereunder: -

It is clear that the Respondent has acknowledged and admitted his liability and requested for one week's time to pay the due amount during the proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority. Further, the said fact was also recorded by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.07.2026. For ease of reference, the Order dated 27.07.2026 is reproduced hereunder: -

Under Section 9 of the Code, the relevant considerations are limited to (i) existence of operational debt, and (ii) occurrence of default. Once default is established, promises of repayment contingent upon uncertain future events cannot defeat the Petitioner's statutory right to seek initiation of CIRP. 9.15 Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority finds that the Respondent's defence based on future repayment plans and explanation of the Director's statement does not negate the admitted liability or the occurrence of default. The default continues to subsist, entitling the Petitioner to maintain the present application. 9.16 The Petition has been filed within the limitation period, the first date of default being 24.02.2026. The statutory requirements under Section 9 of the Code have been complied with by the Petitioner. The Respondent has admitted the debt but seeks time for resolution.

At this juncture, it is germane to refer the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited (supra) wherein in para 25 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for adjudicating Section 9 Application. The Para 25 is as follows: -

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited, (Supra) the essential required for admission of Section 9 Petition stand satisfied and are as follows: -

Hence, all ingredients required for admission of Petition under Section 9 of the Code are satisfied. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to admit Corporate Debtor, i.e., Sneh Polymers Private Limited into CIRP.

Accordingly, this Adjudicating Authority deems it appropriate to appoint Garima Diggiwal having registration number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02018/2020-2021/13158 (Email- [email protected]), to act as Interim Resolution professional in the matter. He shall take such other and further steps as are required under the statute, more specifically in terms of Section 15, 17 and 18 of the Code.

Consequences of initiation of CIRP shall be inter-alia as follows:

In the circumstances, Company Petition bearing CP No. (IB)- 40/09/JPR/2026 is admitted.