NCLT Mumbai Bench Rejects Boston Ivy Insolvency Plea Against Aaquaries Over Fresh Demand Notice After Filing

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai has rejected Boston Ivy Healthcare Solutions Private Limited's insolvency plea against Aaquaries Global Industries Limited after finding that the initial demand notice was defective and the company issued a fresh demand notice after already moving the tribunal over the same dues.

“In this case, the Applicant filed an application under Section 9 based on a demand notice, which subsequently was found as defective and therefore, the Applicant issued another demand notice dated 11.03.2025 demanding the outstanding claimed in the application. In our view, the same is not permissible and after the issuance of fresh notice of demand, the Applicant has file a fresh Section 9 application complying with the provisions of Section 8 and Section 9 of IBC, 2016. ,” the tribunal said.

The petition sought initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against Aaquaries over an alleged default of Rs. 11.24 crore arising from the supply of API drugs by Boston Ivy.

A bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar noted that Boston Ivy had supplied API drugs worth Rs. 21.87 crore to Aaquaries under multiple purchase orders issued between July and October 2023.

Boston Ivy said Aaquaries had made partial payments of Rs. 10.62 crore between July 2023 and May 2024, but an outstanding Rs. 11.24 crore remained unpaid.

The company sent a demand notice on September 25, 2024, before moving the insolvency tribunal on February 12, 2025.

As the matter progressed, the tribunal spotted inconsistencies in the dates of default recorded in the original demand notice, the NeSL Form-D record and a later demand notice issued by Boston Ivy.

While the original notice stated July 2023 as the date when the debt fell due and November 2023 as the date of default, the NeSL record mentioned November 1, 2023. A later demand notice issued on March 11, 2025 stated October 20, 2023 as both the date the debt fell due and the date of default.

The tribunal said the creditor could not issue a fresh demand notice after filing the petition and continue with the same proceedings.

“This Tribunal observes that since a fresh demand notice has been issued post filing of the present application, the present application is defective,” the bench said.

The tribunal also noted that despite being told earlier to correct defects in its insolvency application, Boston Ivy continued with the case without making the required changes.

“This Tribunal further notes that despite pointing out the same to the applicant vide order dated 15.09.2025, the applicant failed to amend the Form-5 and continued to prosecute the application in the present form,” the bench said.

Relying on its earlier ruling in Ultratech Cement Ltd v Universal Journeys (India) Pvt Ltd, the tribunal held that the insolvency framework does not permit multiple demand notices.

The tribunal accordingly rejected the petition, while granting Boston Ivy liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with law.