NCLT Bengaluru Dismisses Netambit's Insolvency Plea Against Flipkart, Finds Pre-Existing Dispute

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has dismissed an insolvency petition filed by Netambit Value First Services Pvt Ltd against Flipkart Internet Private Limited, holding that the material on record disclosed the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.

A coram of Judicial Member Mahendra Khandelwal and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi observed that the dispute had been raised even before the issuance of the statutory demand notice. The Bench observed:

“In our view, there exists a pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor has raised this dispute prior to issuance of Section 8 notice.”

The case arose from an insolvency application filed by Netambit seeking initiation of CIRP against Flipkart for an alleged operational debt of ₹4.37 crore. In December 2024, Flipkart engaged Netambit for a pilot affiliate marketing programme involving affiliate onboarding and sales support.

Pursuant to the arrangement, Flipkart issued multiple purchase orders and Netambit rendered services by onboarding affiliates and deploying manpower. Netambit alleged that while Flipkart initially honoured certain invoices, it subsequently failed to clear dues under several invoices raised between April and June 2025 despite repeated reminders and a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC.

Flipkart opposed the petition, contending that the programme, which was conceived as a city-focused affiliate model, was executed in a manner inconsistent with its intended objectives. It stated that concerns regarding governance issues, invoice entitlement, etc had been communicated to Netambit through emails exchanged prior to the issuance of the Section 8 notice.

According to Flipkart, these disputes led to its decision to discontinue the programme and withhold payment of the disputed invoices.

Referring to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations (P). Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd, the Tribunal reiterated that while considering a petition under Section 9 of the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority is only required to determine whether a plausible dispute requiring investigation exists and not whether the defence is likely to succeed on merits.

Examining the correspondence between the parties, the Tribunal found that Flipkart had raised concerns regarding the execution of the programme and the invoices claimed by Netambit well before the issuance of the demand notice.

“The Corporate Debtor, in their reply to the Section 8 notice, has categorically stated about the issue of pre-existing disputes which were raised by them in their emails sent prior to issuance of the Section 8 notice.” it noted

It further observed:

“there are email exchanges (details of which have been given in paras 47 to 49 above) between the Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor which clearly indicate that there is a pre- existing dispute between the corporate debtor and operational creditor in respect of alleged default of payment of operational debt. These emails are prior to issuance of the Section 8 IBC notice by the Operational Creditor. Corporate Debtor, in their reply to the Section 8 Notice and reply to the present Petition, has categorically raised the issue of pre- existing disputes.”

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

For Petitioner: Advocates Gaurav Mitra and Mahima Shekhawat

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Sunil Fernandes, Advocates Muskaan Gupta and Dheeraj Nair