Supreme Court Upholds Admission of Insolvency Plea Filed by Ingram Micro Against Bathla Teletech
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with an NCLAT ruling that Bathla Teletech Pvt Ltd's claims relating to unsold iPhone 8 inventory and backend discounts did not constitute a genuine pre-existing dispute capable of defeating an insolvency application.
The order leaves intact insolvency proceedings against the electronics reseller at the instance of Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed an appeal filed by Bathla Teletech, holding that no substantial question of law arose from the NCLAT's judgment.
“Since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 21st May, 2026 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.”
The dispute arose from supplies of Apple products, including iPhone 11, iPhone 12 and iPads, made by Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd to Bathla Teletech between March 3 and March 16, 2021. Ingram claimed default of over Rs. 5.70 crore and initiated insolvency proceedings after cheques issued by Bathla were dishonoured.
While the NCLT Delhi had rejected the Section 9 application on the ground of a pre-existing dispute, the NCLAT reversed that decision and directed admission of the insolvency plea.
The NCLAT said that Bathla had repeatedly acknowledged the outstanding dues through emails, requested time for payment and issued cheques towards repayment. It held that Bathla's claims regarding unsold iPhone 8 inventory purchased in 2018 and backend discounts were merely counterclaims and did not relate to the invoices forming the basis of Ingram's operational debt claim.
In its appeal before the Supreme Court, Bathla argued that disputes regarding defective Apple products, unsold inventory, withheld backend incentives, and arbitral proceedings existed before the insolvency notice. It was also on an arbitral award and contended that Ingram itself had subsequently invoked arbitration concerning the same commercial relationship.
However, finding no substantial question of law warranting interference, the Court dismissed the appeal and left undisturbed the NCLAT's direction to admit Ingram Micro's insolvency application against Bathla Teletech.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocates Sudeep Singh, Bhavya Sethi, Manish Gupta, Srishti Juneja, AOR
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, Advocates Sudhir Kumar, Shefali Roy, Sumit Vankadkar, Karan Mamgain, Kartikay Sharma, Siddharth Kumar, Lipika Sharma, Jyoti Sharma, AOR