NCLT Delhi Rejects Impresario's Insolvency Plea Against Colorbar Over Pre-Existing Dispute

The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an insolvency application filed by Impresario against Colorbar Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., holding that a substantial pre-existing dispute between the parties barred initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The bench of Judicial Member Mahendra Khandelwal and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi observed, “The Corporate Debtor has questioned the supply of goods, investigated and time and again clarified the existence of such disputes in communications to the Applicant prior to the issuance of notice under section 8 IBC. The nature of these disputes is neither illusory nor contrived.”

Impresario, a registered partnership firm engaged in promotional activities, supplied articles to Colorbar under purchase orders issued between October 2024 and May 2025. It claimed ₹3.70 crore as principal dues and ₹68.58 lakh as interest at 18% per annum, taking its total claim to ₹4.39 crore.

The Operational Creditor claimed that Colorbar had received the goods and availed an input tax credit of ₹63.83 lakh.

It also relied on a May 15, 2026 balance confirmation showing ₹3.72 crore as payable. After Impresario issued a Section 8 demand notice on June 2, Colorbar alleged that its former employees had colluded with vendors, including Impresario, over inflated procurement and kickbacks.

It cited a December 2025 email and a February 2026 police complaint. Impresario denied the allegations, pointing out that no FIR, summons or charge sheet had been issued against it. The tribunal, however, found that the complaint contained allegations of Impresario's involvement.

It further noted that a similar Section 9 application against Colorbar had been dismissed by another NCLT bench on July 21, 2026 on the ground of a pre-existing dispute.

Holding that the defence was “not a moonshine defence”, the bench found substantial disputes between the parties. It clarified that it was not adjudicating the correctness or truthfulness of the allegations. Since the dispute existed before the Section 8 notice, it dismissed the application