Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against NCLAT Order Rejecting Insolvency Plea Against Voltas
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision dismissing the insolvency plea filed by Air Wave Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd against Voltas Ltd, a Tata Group company engaged in air-conditioning and engineering services.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the civil appeal arising out of the NCLAT judgment of November 27, 2025, which had refused to admit insolvency against Voltas for for an operational debt of over Rs 1.20 crores.
The court said, “We find no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned final judgment and order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Certain operational dues were claimed by Air Wave Technocrafts against Voltas for services rendered towards operation and maintenance of HVAC systems at multiple project sites across the country between 2010 and 2019.
Air Wave had raised invoices from time to time, the last of which was dated January 2, 2019. According to the creditor, payments were partly made, including a sum of Rs. 7.81 lakh in February 2021, and certain communications in August and December 2022 referred to a reconciliation and a proposed settlement of Rs15.03 lakh.
Alleging an outstanding operational debt of Rs. 1.20 crore, the creditor issued a demand notice on February 17, 2024 and subsequently filed an insolvency application on August 29, 2024 seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings.
Voltas opposed the plea, contending that the invoices were time-barred and that there were long-standing disputes regarding certification of work, supporting documents, and compliance requirements such as PF and ESIC records.
The NCLT dismissed the insolvency petition on May 27, 2025, holding that the claim was barred by limitation and was also hit by pre existing disputes.
On appeal, the NCLAT upheld the dismissal. It held that part payment in 2021 and limited references to Rs.15.03 lakh did not extend limitation for all invoices and that disputes regarding documentation and certification existed prior to the demand notice.
For Appellant: Senior Advocate Pooja M. Saigal with Advocates Vishal Agarwal, Maneesh, Madhusudan Sharma, Asit Kumar Roy, Harish Kaushik, Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR