Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With NCLAT Order Upholding CIRP Against Kirtiman Cements

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment upholding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kirtiman Cements and Packaging Industries Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the Civil Appeal filed under Section 62 of the IBC, stating that it was not inclined to interfere with the NCLAT's judgment dated 17 December 2025.

The appeal stemmed from the NCLAT's decision upholding the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh order admitting a Section 9 petition filed by Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd., which had acted as a Del Credere Agent of ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. (OPAL).

At the heart of the dispute before the Supreme Court was whether a Del Credere Agent of the original supplier could be treated as an “Operational Creditor” under Sections 5(20) and 5(21) of the IBC and thereby initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 9.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Mishra, appearing for the appellant, contended that Napin Impex had not itself supplied the goods and therefore could not claim the status of an operational creditor. He argued that although Section 5(20) covers a person to whom operational debt has been legally assigned or transferred, no such assignment had taken place in this case. According to him, OPAL was the actual supplier, had issued the invoices and complied with GST requirements, and the agent could not assume the supplier's position to trigger insolvency proceedings.

The NCLAT, however, had rejected these objections. It noted that the corporate debtor had approached the agent for supply of polymer raw materials, acted upon the commercial arrangement, made part payments and acknowledged liability. The Appellate Tribunal specifically relied on the Corporate Debtor's written admission, recording:

“Corporate Debtor vide email dated 30.10.2019, unambiguously and unequivocally admitted that a sum of Rs.1,11,71,649 was due and payable to the Petitioner as on 30.10.2019.”

The NCLAT had framed the issue as whether the debt claimed by Napin Impex constituted an “operational debt” and whether it qualified as an “Operational Creditor” entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 9, particularly in light of the contention that OPAL, and not Napin, was the real supplier.

Finding that the material on record clearly established the existence of an operational debt and a default, particularly in light of the Corporate Debtor's written acknowledgment and the undisputed supply of goods under the commercial arrangement, the NCLAT upheld the admission of the Section 9 petition and dismissed the appeal along with the connected contempt petitions.

With the Supreme Court declining to interfere with that ruling under Section 62 of the IBC, the insolvency proceedings against Kirtiman Cements and Packaging Industries Ltd. will continue.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sourabh Mishra, Alabhya Dhamija AOR
For Respondent(On Caveat): Shashank Shekhar AOR, Ratnesh Kumar advocate