NCLAT Issues Notice To Eros On Phantom Studios' Insolvency Appeal

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has issued notice to Eros International Media Ltd. in an appeal filed by Phantom Studios India Pvt Ltd against dismissal of its insolvency plea.

The matter was heard by Judicial Member Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha.

Although no one appeared for Phantom, the bench issued notice after noting that the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had dismissed the insolvency petition.

Earlier, on June 16, 2026, the NCLT Mumbai Bench dismissed Phantom's plea against Eros.

The NCLT held that Phantom's claim of Rs 1.48 crore arising from the parties' co-production arrangement for the film NH-10 did not qualify as an “operational debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The dispute arose from a term sheet dated February 11, 2013, and a Film Co-Production Agreement dated December 17, 2013, for NH-10. Phantom's predecessor was responsible for producing the film, while Eros was to finance, distribute and exploit it.

Phantom relied on a March 14, 2024 letter under which Eros agreed to pay Rs 1,25,66,866 on or before June 30, 2024. Phantom claimed that the amount remained unpaid.

The claim related to Phantom's share of lead actor Anushka Sharma's fee. Under the agreement, the Rs 1.25 crore fee was to be borne equally by Eros and the producer, with each contributing Rs 62.50 lakh. The amount was to be recouped from the film's revenues.

The NCLT found that the arrangement had the features of a joint venture. The parties had a common objective of producing NH-10, exercised joint control over aspects of production and agreed to share profits and intellectual property rights equally.

“The nature of the transactions entered into between the parties were not that of a Vendor and Vendee,” the tribunal observed. It held that even if money was owed by Eros to Phantom, the amount could not be treated as operational debt under Section 5(21).

The NCLT consequently did not examine the other issues, including limitation and set-off, and dismissed Phantom's insolvency petition