NCLT Admits Insolvency Plea Against The Moms Co. Parent Over ₹1.32 Crore Dues

The bench of Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh while admitting the plea, observed that there was no pre-existing dispute as averred by the company and that the debt was indeed beyond the IBC threshold.

Bjain Pharmaceuticals, incorporated in 2006, is engaged in manufacturing and supplying homoeopathic medicines and specialty products. Amishi Consumer Technologies, incorporated in 2016, manufactures personal care products. In December 2021, Amishi began purchasing goods from Bjain on credit. Over time, invoices were raised for supplies, but payments were defaulted.

By January 2025, the outstanding dues stood at ₹1.32 crore. A statutory demand notice dated 24 April 2025 was served, but Amishi neither paid nor raised objections within the statutory period.

Amishi claimed that the parties had agreed to a 90‑day payment period, but Bjain's invoices imposed a 45‑day term, allegedly deviating from the agreed terms. Further, the goods were delivered late and in quantities, causing business losses. It was also contended that only Rs 52.20 lakh was payable, citing an email dated 22 January 2025, and sought reconciliation of accounts.

Bjain countered that Clause 5(5) of the Contract Manufacturing Agreement dated 20 December 2021 expressly required payment within 30 days of the invoice. The 90‑day term mentioned in purchase orders was unilateral and never accepted. Invoices allowed 45 days, and Amishi accepted them without protest. Further Clauses 6.9 and 8.1 of the same Agreement gave Amishi the right to reject non‑conforming goods with written notice within 30 days. No such notice was ever issued, and supplies were accepted without objection.

The bench noted that the contractual payment term was 30 days, and Amishi failed to prove any mutually agreed modification. It was also noted that contemporaneous evidence of rejection, deficiency notices, or damages was not produced. The bench held that no genuine pre‑existing dispute existed and the operational debt exceeded the statutory threshold.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, a moratorium was declared, and Amit Talwar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

For Respondents: Advocate Aayush Kothari and Dhruv Mishra