M/s Sai Kripa Indenting vs Sneh Exports Private Limited

Per: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Judicial Member

The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’/ ‘Code’) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by Sai Kripa Indenting (‘Petitioner’/ ‘Operational Creditor’) through its Proprietor, namely Mrs. Deepali Wadhwani seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) in respect of Sneh Exports Private Limited (CIN: U17219RJ2012PTC039745) (‘Respondent’/ ‘Corporate Debtor’), on account of default in payment of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07/- (Rupees Seventy-Four Crore Thirty-Four Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine and Seven Paise Only), as on 18.04.2025.

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

The Petitioner is a proprietary trading firm, operated under proprietorship of Mrs. Deepali Wadhwani, having GSTIN: 08AAZPW4437A1Z7, PAN: AAZPW4437A and Aadhaar No.: 7287 4415 8767. The present Petition is filed through its Proprietor, namely Mrs. Deepali Wadhwani.

The Corporate Debtor is a Company limited by shares incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 on 09.11.2023, having authorised Share Capital of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore only) and Paid-up Capital of Rs. 7,38,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Thirty-Eight Lakhs Forty Thousand Rupees Only), having registered address at 2133, NH-8, District Dudu, Dudu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India-303008.

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

The Petitioner is engaged in the business of supply and trade of polymer products, including plastic granules (HSN 39021000), PP granules (HSN 39021000), HDPE granules, PP woven fabric, and PP tape bobbins (HSN 39232990).

The Respondent approached the Petitioner for purchasing of polymer goods for its business operations. Pursuant to the order placed by the Respondent, the Petitioner supplied the goods to the Respondent in daily course of business and raised the various invoices from time to time with agreed credit terms of 45 days from the date of invoice.

During the daily course of business between the parties the Petitioner without any demur or complaint received the said goods. Pursuant to the supply of goods, the Petitioner raised total 368 tax invoices w.e.f. 03.03.2025 to 28.01.2026 for the supply of polymer products for an Aggregate invoice value: Rs. 74,21,95,865/- (Rupees Seventy-Four Crores Twenty-One Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Five Rupees Only) with a credit period of 45 days from invoice date. The Respondent made partial adjustments through reverse supplies, TDS deductions and certain payments; the ledger closing balance as on 28.01.2026 stands at Rs. 74,34,62,189.07, being the net amount due after full credit for all such adjustments. The Ledger Account, along with an extract of GSTR-3B of the Petitioner, are mentioned in Annexure D (Colly) of the Petition. However, the Respondent failed and neglected to make payment of the outstanding amount. The details of invoices are annexed in appendix I of Petition.

The first and earliest date of default raised from Invoice No. SKI/24-25/844 dated 03.03.2025, which fell due on 17.04.2025. It is contended that the Corporate Debtor, having failed to discharge the payment obligation, defaulted on 18.04.2025. As on the date of filing of the petition, the said invoice remains partially unpaid to the extent of Rs. 7,77,950/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Rupees only).

The Petitioner issued a demand notice dated 15.02.2026 to the Corporate Debtor in Form-3 and Form-4 of Adjudicating Authority Rules, bearing Ref. No. SKI/IBC/SEPL/2026/001, under Section 8 of the Code, 2016 for the total outstanding amount of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07/- (Rupees Seventy-Four Crore Thirty-Four Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine and Seven Paise Only) which was served by hand delivery at the registered address of the Respondent. The Respondent neither repaid the amount nor communicate any pre-existing dispute as required under Section 8(2)(a) or demonstrate repayment within the mandatory 10-days period under Section 8(2) of the Code, which ended on 25.02.2026.

Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a Reminder Notice bearing Ref. No. SKI/IBC/SEPL/2026/002 for outstanding amount of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07/- (Rupees Seventy-Four Crore Thirty-Four Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine and Seven Paise Only) served by hand delivery on 28.02.2026. It is contended that during the delivery of the said Reminder Notice, Mr. Vishal Bansal, the Director of the Respondent, was personally present at the Registered Office and expressly admitted that the Corporate Debtor was unable to make any payment to the petitioner for the next six months. The Petitioner submits that this statement amounts to an unconditional acknowledgement of the outstanding debt and an express admission of the Corporate Debtor’s financial inability to repay, which, according to the petitioner, constitutes an admission of default in payment.

The Petitioner issued a Final Reminder bearing Ref. No. SKI/IBC/SEPL/2026/003 was issued and served by hand delivery on 17.03.2026 for the full outstanding amount of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07 on or before 20.03.2026. It is contended that despite the issuance of three notices and the personal admission of its Director, the Respondent has not made any payment.

The Petitioner has submitted that initially on 24.03.2026, Mr. Rajeev Mawkin, Insolvency Professional (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00961/2020-2021/13048), issued a written communication in Form 2 under Rule 9 of the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016, thereby consenting to act as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for M/s Sneh Exports Private Limited. However, thereafter, the Petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 01.07.2026 to the Adjudicating Authority to bring on record Mrs. Garima Diggiwal (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-02018/2020-2021/13158), who was proposed to be appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the present matter. The Petitioner requested to Adjudicating Authority to permit to place the said affidavit and documents on record during the course of hearing dated 01.07.2026.

In compliance of Section 9(3)(b) of the IB Code an affidavit is filed by the Operational Creditor stating that neither payment was made nor notice of dispute was received from the Corporate Debtor.

The Petitioner submitted that the present Application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, before Adjudicating Authority, for initiation of CIRP against Sneh Exports Private Limited is filed within 3 years of the first date of default (18.04.2025) and is well within the limitation period.

The Petitioner has relied upon the following documents:

I. Statement of Unpaid Invoices (368 Invoices) with Due Dates and Days in Default at Annexure-A Colly;

II. Affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of the Code declaring Non-existence of Dispute;

III. Ledger Account of Sneh Exports Pvt. Ltd. in the books of Sai Kripa Indenting (01.03.2025 to 28.01.2026), along with an extract of GSTR-3B of the Petitioner at Annexure-D Colly;

IV. Demand Notice (Form 3 and Form 4) Ref. SKI/IBC/SEPL/2026/001 dated 15.02.2026 with Proof of Hand Delivery at Annexure E;

V. Annexure F Reminder Notice Ref. SKI/IBC/SEPL/2026/002 dated 28.02.2026 with Proof of Service / Acknowledgement by Mr. Vishal Bansal (Director of the Respondent) at Annexure F;

VI. Final Reminder Ref. SKI/IBC/SEPL/2026/003 dated 17.03.2026 with Proof of Hand Delivery at Annexure G;

VII. Form 2: Written Communication by Proposed IRP (Mr. Rajeev Mawkin) dated 24.03.2026 at Annexure I.

The case of the Respondent is as follows:

The Respondent admitted the existence of the Operational Debt claimed in the Petition. The Respondent admitted that it received supplies of polymer products from the Operational Creditor during the period 03.03.2025 to 28.01.2026 against 368 tax invoices, and that the ledger closing balance of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07/- (Rupees Seventy-Four Crore Thirty-Four Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine and Seven Paise only) reflects the net amount due and payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

The Respondent partially admitted, with the candid clarification that the Respondent did not raise any such dispute till the receipt of the copy of the petition filed by the Petitioner. Further, Respondent contended that the debt being acknowledged by the directors of the Respondent with a commitment to pay off the dues/debt within a reasonable time.

The Respondent has further submitted that the default is attributable solely to temporary and bona fide financial stringency, arising from genuine and verifiable causes, and that it is actively engaged in resolving the same.

Further the Respondent contended that his inability to discharge the dues of the Petitioner was occasioned by coordinated enforcement action initiated by its secured lenders. In particular, the State Bank of India, SME Branch, M.I. Road, Jaipur, issued a Demand Notice dated 16.01.2026 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, classifying the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 15.01.2026 and demanding RS. 23,05,45,949.40/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Crores Five Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Nine and Forty Paise Only, exclusive of further interest and charges. The said notice-imposed restrictions under Section 13(13) of the Act upon the Respondent.

It is further submitted that contemporaneous Section 13(2) Demand Notices were issued by State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and other connected lenders against associated group entities, including Sneh Polymers Private Limited and Sneh Olefines Private Limited, and their guarantors. This group-wide enforcement produced a cascading liquidity contraction across the group and severely constrained the Respondent’s ability to mobilise funds to service its operational creditors.

The State Bank of India issued a Possession Notice dated 16.05.2026 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which resulted in grave loss of goodwill of the Respondent and its promoters, eroded the confidence of suppliers and customers, and derailed the proposed induction of investors that was under negotiation for resolution and repayment of creditors.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Respondent asserts that the default is not the product of unwillingness to pay, siphoning of funds, or any pre-existing dispute, but is the direct consequence of secured creditor enforcement which froze its working capital and disrupted its commercial standing at the very time it was striving to put in place a structured resolution.

It is submitted that it acted bona fide and took necessary steps towards structured resolution of its dues. These include:

The Respondent has sought time of twelve to eighteen months to clear and liquidate the operational debt of the Petitioner, through cash-flows and proceeds expected to be realised from restructuring and investor induction.

Respondent further submitted that with respect to the statement attributed to its Director, Mr. Vishal Bansal, dated 28.02.2026, that the Respondent was unable to make payment “for the next six months” the Respondent clarifies that the statement was a contemporaneous and honest reflection of temporary liquidity stringency occasioned by the SARFAESI embargo, and not an admission of permanent insolvency or unwillingness to pay. It reiterates its commitment to discharge the debt over a defined and reasonable horizon.

Finally, the Respondent prays that its bona fide willingness and undertaking to settle the dues of the Operational Creditor be recorded, and that such settlement be facilitated and supervised.

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) is as follows:

In the present case, the Petitioner is engaged in the business of supply and trade of polymer products. The Respondent approached the Petitioner for purchasing of polymer goods for its business operations. Pursuant to the order placed by the Respondent, the Petitioner supplied the goods to the Respondent in daily course of business and raised the various invoices from time to time with agreed credit terms of 45 days from the date of invoice. During the daily course of business between the parties the Petitioner without any demur or complaint received the said goods. Pursuant to the supply of goods, the Petitioner raised total 368 tax invoice during the period 03.03.2025 to 28.01.2026. However, Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment towards these invoices raised by Operational Creditor amounting to an outstanding balance of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07- (Rupees Seventy-Four Crores Thirty-Four Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine and Seven Rupees Only) as on 20.03.2026 final date stipulated in final reminder for repayment of debt.

The present Petition has been filed by the Operational Creditor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, praying for initiation of CIRP against Sneh Exports Private Limited (“the Corporate Debtor”), on account of default in payment of a sum of Rs. 74,34,62,189.07 (Rupees Seventy-Four Crore Thirty-Four Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine and Seven Paise Only).

It is an admitted position that the Respondent received supplies of polymer products from the Petitioner during the period 03.03.2025 to 28.01.2026 against 368 tax invoices. The ledger closing balance reflects the outstanding sum claimed by the Petitioner. The Respondent has not disputed the supply of goods or the quantum of debt.

It is noted that the Respondent has not alleged any dispute pertaining to the quality, quantity, rate, delivery, invoices, or any other contractual terms and obligations prior to the issuance of the demand notice and subsequent reminders dated 15.02.2026, 28.02.2026, and 17.03.2026.

The Respondent has contended that the default is attributable solely to temporary financial stringency, arising from enforcement actions initiated by its secured lenders. It is placed on record that the State Bank of India issued a Demand Notice dated 16.01.2026 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, classifying the account as Non-Performing Asset on 15.01.2026 and demanding Rs. 23,05,45,949.40/- Restrictions under Section 13(13) of the Act were imposed upon the Respondent. Subsequently, SBI issued a Possession Notice dated 16.05.2026 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which, according to the Respondent, caused grave loss of goodwill, erosion of confidence among suppliers and customers, and derailed investor negotiations.

The Respondent has placed reliance on steps taken towards resolution, namely:

The Petitioner relies upon the statement of the Director of the Respondent as an express admission of default. The Petitioner further contends that despite issuance of demand notice dated 15.02.2026 and subsequent reminders dated 28.02.2026 and 17.03.2026, no payment has been made by the Respondent.

The respondent had clarified for the aforesaid mentioned statement of its director dated 28.02.2026, regarding inability to pay “for six months,” was only a contemporaneous reflection of temporary liquidity stringency and not an admission of insolvency or unwillingness to pay. Further, the Respondent had sought a period of twelve to eighteen months to liquidate the operational debt of the Petitioner through restructuring proceeds and investor induction.

This Adjudicating Authority noted that the Respondent has acknowledged liability towards the Operational Creditor and undertaken repayment within twelve to eighteen months. However, undertakings premised on future restructuring or investor induction cannot substitute for actual discharge of debt. The Director's statement dated 28.02.2026, even if explained as a temporary liquidity constraint, nonetheless evidences inability to meet obligations when due. The fact remains that despite statutory demand notice dated 15.02.2026 and subsequent reminders dated 28.02.2026 and 17.03.2026, no payment has been affected.

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. Accordingly, the Tribunal 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.

The Petition has been filed within the limitation period, the first date of default being 18.04.2025. 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: -

XV. At this juncture, it is germane to refer the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017) wherein in para 27 and 28 the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for adjudicating Section 9 Application. The Paras are 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, and Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr. (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 Exports Private 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)-31/09/JPR/2026 is admitted.