India: Judicial Vagaries Of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – An Analysis


By way of background, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted with the primary objective to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporates, firms and individuals in a time bound manner to maximise the value of their assets. The genesis of the Code is rooted in the long-term vision of providing an effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy, which would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. As it exists, the Code has dovetailed judicial and commercial wisdom for the first time. On perusing the entire scheme of Code, while it is evident that time is of the essence for the entire insolvency resolution process, it is equally important that the Code be interpreted with its entire purpose and the mischief it sought to address in mind.

However, the Code is still at a nascent stage and recent judicial interpretations have raised more questions than it has answered with respect to its implementation. This is because the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT PB), seems to have interpolated a wider meaning in certain provisions of the Code while interpreting them.

Factual Background

Recently, while disposing of two cases on 1 March 2017 against a common corporate debtor, Ambience Private Limited, (Corporate Debtor) filed by One Coat Plaster and Shivam Construction Company (being Company Application No. (I.B.) 07/PB/2017 and Company Application No. (I.B.) 08/PB/2017 respectively), the NCLT PB was required to interpret the word 'dispute', the phrase 'notice of dispute', and deal with the sanctity of the timeframe envisaged for filing a reply, if at all, to demand notice by an operational creditor, for the first time.

Briefly, the Corporate Debtor had issued certain work orders to One Coat Plaster and Shivam Construction Company (collectively, Operational Creditors), on various occasions. After some payments had been made to the Operational Creditors, they alleged that certain amounts were still due to them by the Corporate Debtor, i.e. INR 32,60,833 (Indian Rupees Thirty two lakh sixty thousand eight hundred thirty three) in so far as One Coat Plaster was concerned, and INR 8,95,900 (Indian Rupees Eight Lakh ninety five thousand nine hundred) in so far as Shivam Construction Company was concerned.

Accordingly, both the Operational Creditors served a notice of demand under Section 8 of the Code on 25 January 2017, at the registered office of the Corporate Debtor as well as via e-mail. The Operational Creditors inter alia claimed that they had not received any payment, much less any response to the demand notice, till the date of filing of the petition before NCLT PB.

Arguments before the NCLT

While the Operational Creditors demonstrated their case and supported it with the documents on record, the Corporate Debtor contended that it had in fact replied to the demand notice dated 4 February 2017 to both the Operational Creditors on 8 February 2017, stating, inter alia, that due to the poor quality of work on part of both the Operational Creditors, no further payment could have been made to them, and that in any event it completely denied the claim of both the Operational Creditors.

NCLT Order

For ease of reference and to appreciate the controversy at hand, the relevant extracts from the NCLT PB order are reproduced below, with emphasis added in bold where necessary:

  • "...However, in relation to the balance amount claimed by the petitioners as due from the Company, we are unable to agree in view of lack of materials submitted before us by the Petitioners and also taking into consideration the fact that the debt sought to be fastened on the company has been vehemently disputed as is evident from the reply to the notice sent by the Company, which is dated 04.02.2017 but dispatched on 08.02.2017 to the counsel for the petitioners."...
  • "Reference to the provisions of the Code, more particularly Section 9 thereof clearly discloses that this Tribunal has the power, inter alia also to reject the Application of the Operational Creditor under Section 9(5)(d) in case of notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditors or there is record of dispute with the information utility. In the absence of information utility, we are perforce to rely on the notice of dispute as sent by the Company to the petitioners denying the liability based on which the entire edifice of the petitioner's claim crumbles which constitutes basis of the present application. It is pertinent to note that the expression 'dispute' has been defined and it seems to be an inclusive definition as seen from Section 5(6) of the Code..."
  • "A bare perusal of Section 5(6) of the Code shows that a dispute could be proved by showing that a suit has been filed or arbitration are pending. It further elaborates that suit or arbitration should be in respect of the existence of the amount of debt, quality of goods or services; or a breach of a representation or a warranty. It is not an exhaustive definition but an illustrative one. It becomes evident from the expression 'includes' which immediately succeeds the word 'dispute'. Moreover, under Section 8(1) of the Code adequate room has been provided for the 'NCLT' to ascertain the existence of a dispute...Section 8 (2) further clarifies that the corporate debtor is obliged to bring to the notice of the 'Operational Creditor' within 10 days of the receipt of notice, the existence of a dispute and record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceeding filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute. The other option is to pay the demanded amount. In the instant case the Petitioner sent a demand notice which was duly received by the 'company' but the reply was also filed which has been delayed by four days where dispute has been raised...Hence we are inclined to reject the above petitions."

Judicial Vagaries – An Analysis

By passing the above directions, which, in our view seem to be tad glib, the NCLT PB seemed to have opened a Pandora's box with respect to the implementation of the Code. Given the clear mandate, object and purpose of the Code, certain relevant questions are itemised below:

Whether definition of 'dispute' under the Code can be said to inclusive?

At the outset, Section 5(6) of the Code gives a very restrictive meaning to a 'dispute' by defining it to 'include a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to – (a) the existence of the amount of the debt; (b) the quality of the goods or service; or (c) the breach of a representation or warranty'. Upon perusal of this definition, the legislative intent is clear in limiting the scope of the term 'dispute', to only mean the pendency of a proceeding, be it either a suit or an arbitration, in the manner discussed above.

Having said the above, even if it is argued that the definition of 'dispute' under the Code can be said to be inclusive, it cannot extend to a situation of mere denial of the claim. By extending the settled principle of ejusdem generis, it appears to be clear that the word 'includes' can, at best, be extended only to any pending legal proceedings other than a pending suit or arbitration proceedings.

In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Limited v State of UP [Ref: (2005) 2 SCC 515] is relevant. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court observed that 'where two or more words susceptible of analogous meaning are clubbed together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from and are qualified by each other, the meaning of the general word being restricted to a sense analogous to that of less general.'

Whether NCLT has the discretion to ascertain the veracity of a 'dispute' at the time of adjudicating an application under Section 9 of the Code?

Section 8 of the Code entitles an operational creditor, upon occurrence of a default (i.e., non-payment of debt, when it has become due and payable) to issue a demand notice in the manner prescribed therein, to a corporate debtor, which can be followed by filing an application before NCLT in terms of Section 9 of the Code. Once the said application is filed, NCLT, in terms of Section 9(5) of the Code, can exercise only one of the two options within a timebound period of 14 (fourteen) days of such filing, (i.e., either admit the application or reject the application by way of an order in the clearly prescribed manner provided in Section 9(5)(i) and Section 9(5)(ii) of the Code respectively).

Upon a perusal of the grounds (either for admission or rejection) under Section 9 of the Code, it is evident that the Code does not envisage any discretion upon NCLT to ascertain the veracity of a dispute (i.e., whether the dispute raised is genuine or not), since the Code has given a very clear and unambiguous meaning to the term 'dispute', thereby rendering the interpretation extremely objective and contextual.

Having said the above, the powers, scope and limit of adjudication under Section 9 are apparent from a perusal of Section 9(5) of the Code as the same uses the word 'shall', thereby indicating the legislative intent to require NCLT to (a) necessarily decide an application within 14 (Fourteen) days of it being filed by means of an order; (b) while deciding, either admit an application or reject an application on the limited five grounds available to NCLT under Section 9(5)(i) or Section 9(5)(ii) of the Code respectively.

It is relevant to state here that the Supreme Court in the case of Super Cassettes Industries Limited v Music Broadcast Private Limited [Ref: (2012) 5 SC 488], stated " has been held by this Court in innumerable cases, a tribunal is a creature of the statute and can exercise only such powers as are vested in it by the statute."

What is the meaning of 'notice of dispute'? Whether a reply under Section 8(2) of the Code simply denying a claim in a demand notice can be considered for rejecting an Application under Section 9 of the Code? What is the sanctity of the time frame envisaged in Section 8(2) of the Code?

Though 'notice of dispute' has not been defined in the Code, it cannot be extended to mean a mere notice, inter alia, denying the claim. Any denial to a demand notice must necessarily raise a 'dispute' in terms of Section 5(6) of the Code. Thus, a mere reply simply denying a claim made in the demand notice cannot be considered for rejecting an application under Section 9 of the Code.

Further, Section 8(2) of the Code provides that a notice of dispute, if any, to a demand notice must be within a period of 10 (ten) days from its receipt. The question which remains to be addressed and analysed is whether the period of 10 (ten) days, as provided for in Section 9, includes "non-working days" and "gazetted holidays".

Khaitan Comment

The context of the term 'dispute', as referred in the Code, ought to be given a plain and literal meaning, as envisaged in the Code. A failure to do so would give errant corporate debtor(s) an opportunity to bypass the purpose, object and scheme of the Code. Interestingly, post the passing of the order by NCLT PB on 1 March, 2017, two judgments with divergent views have been passed on this issue, (i) NCLT Mumbai Bench, on 6 March, 2017, in the case of Essar Projects India Ltd v MCL Global Steel Pvt Ltd., while interpreting the term 'dispute', held that merely denying a claim in reply to a demand notice, could not be treated as 'dispute in existence' for the purposes of rejecting an application under Section 9 of the Code; and (ii) NCLT PB, in its recent judgment on 24 March 2017 in the case of Annapurna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Soril Infra Resources Ltd., has expanded the scope of term 'dispute' by holding that a corporate debtor is well within its right to reject a demand on any sustainable grounds, which is to be determined on a fact to fact basis.

Having said this, it is yet to be seen as to which of the interpretations would eventually prevail, if challenged. However, as of today, the Code seems to have already become a victim of judicial vagaries, given the fact that two different benches of NCLT have rendered divergent interpretations on the same issue.

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions