The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that it cannot rewrite an operational creditor's insolvency case by separating invoices, determining different dates of default, and recalculating the debt when the creditor itself refused to amend its Section 9 application.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar made the observation while dismissing Alliance Advertising and Marketing Pvt Ltd's insolvency petition against Eduisfun Technologies Pvt Ltd.
"This Tribunal cannot substitute itself for the Operational Creditor and rewrite the foundational particulars of default contained in Form 5. Nor can the Adjudicating Authority suo motu reconstruct the Operational Creditor's case by segregating invoices, determining separate dates of default under different payment terms, recalculating the debt and thereafter treating the reconstructed figure as the amount in default for the purpose of Section 9," the tribunal observed.
Alliance filed the plea on August 1, 2026, seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Eduisfun. It claimed ₹1.24 crore in principal dues against 38 invoices arising from an advertising-services agreement dated November 1, 2019. The total claim was ₹4.05 crore, including interest.
The dispute partly concerned Section 10A of the IBC, which bars insolvency proceedings for defaults occurring during the COVID-19 protection period beginning March 25, 2020. The protected period ultimately ended on March 24, 2021.
At the August 12 hearing, the tribunal flagged invoices that had fallen due during the Section 10A period. It also questioned Alliance's claim for interest because the underlying agreement contained no interest clause. Alliance was asked to amend Form 5, the application used by an operational creditor to seek CIRP under Section 9, but declined to modify it.
The 38 invoices had different payment terms. The tribunal therefore noted that the relevant question for Section 10A was not simply the invoice date, but when payment became due and the corresponding default occurred.
Although some invoices predated March 25, 2020, Alliance did not amend Form 5 or segregate a qualifying default outside the Section 10A bar. The tribunal also held that later balance confirmations could not shift a protected default to a later date.
Alliance had claimed interest at 3% a month based on terms printed on the invoices. The tribunal noted that the agreement contained no interest clause and that Alliance produced no evidence of Eduisfun having previously paid interest on delayed payments. It concluded that interest had never been agreed upon.
"The statutory bar under Section 10A attached to the defaults falling within the protected period and such defaults cannot be made the basis for initiation of CIRP. The subsequent acknowledgments do not cure that statutory bar.", it ruled.
The tribunal held that the petition was not maintainable in the form in which it was filed and dismissed Alliance Advertising's plea.
For Operational Creditor: Advocates Siddharth Kumar, Karan
For Corporate Debtor: Advocate Prakash Shah