NCLAT Quashes Insolvency Admission Against Vikram Solar As Debt Falls Below ₹1 Crore
On Monday, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside the admission of a Section 9 insolvency petition against Vikram Solar after both sides admitted that the debt was below the ₹1 crore threshold prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The appellate tribunal quashed the June 12, 2026 order of the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had admitted the petition filed by Isitva Steel Pvt. Ltd.
The order was passed by the bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Naresh Salecha.
The bench directed, "Consequently, the amount of Rs. 91,98,556/- deposited by the Appellant pursuant to an order dated 24.06.2026, shall be refunded to the Appellant after due verification and in accordance with law. The settlement, if any, can be adverted to between the parties."
During the hearing, Vikram Solar submitted that the cirp plea ought not to have been admitted because the claim amount was less than ₹1 crore. It argued that the petition was therefore barred by the minimum threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC.
Isitva Steel fairly admitted that the overall debt was also less than ₹1 crore.
Noting that both parties agreed the debt was below the statutory threshold, the bench held that the NCLT's admission order had to be set aside.
The bench held, "Taking the submissions of both the Ld. Counsels on record, and since it is admitted case that the due amount was less than Rs. 1 crore; the admission order dated 12.06.2026, stands set aside."
The insolvency proceedings were initiated on an alleged default of about Rs 9.44 crore arising from a subcontract for civil works in a solar power project.
Before the NCLT, Isitva Steels contended that the parties had later agreed to a full and final settlement of Rs 4.60 crore. It argued that Vikram Solar failed to pay the agreed amount, reviving its original claim. Vikram Solar, however, maintained that it had already paid Rs 4.14 crore under the settlement. According to it, only Rs 91.98 lakh remained pending, bringing the amount below the required Rs 1 Crore threshold.
The NCLT had rejected that contention. It held that the email relied upon by Vikram Solar showing dues of Rs 91.98 lakh had been issued only for TDS reconciliation and did not waive the creditor's contractual claims.
The bench on 24 June 2026 stayed the insolvency proceedings and had directed Vikram Solar to deposit a demand draft of Rs 91.98 lakh in favour of the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
During the earlier hearing before the appellate tribunal, Vikram Solar submitted that it was willing to deposit Rs 91.98 lakh to demonstrate its bona fides, and Isitva Steels did not oppose the proposed deposit. It submitted that the amount would constitute full and final settlement of its claim.
For Appellants: Senior Advocates Abhijeet Sinha, with Advocates Diwakar Maheshwari, Kumar Saurab Singh, Aseem Chaturvedi, Dipen Chatterjee, Vishnu Sriram, Oshik Bagchi, Shivank Diddi, Shreyas Edupuganti, A. Ramaih, Aaria Arekh, Kumar Anurag Singh & Zain A. Khan
For Respondents: Senior Advocate Ratnanko Banerjee with Advocates Arkaj Kumar, Akshat Mittal, R. N. Ghose, S. Santa, Santanu Ghosh & Shusna Santra for R1 Advocates Dhruv Goel and Ruchika Dhandhania for R2