NCLAT Rules CoC Alone Can Fix RP Fees, Sets Aside NCLT’s Reduction as Beyond Jurisdiction

NCLAT Rules CoC Alone Can Fix RP Fees, Sets Aside NCLT’s Reduction as Beyond Jurisdiction

Introduction

The National Company Law Tribunal has admitted a Section 9 insolvency application filed by One97 Communications Ltd. against Eyemyeye Pvt. Ltd. over unpaid operational dues exceeding ₹3 crore. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), holding that the statutory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were duly satisfied.

Factual Background

Eyemyeye Pvt. Ltd., a Gurugram-based online eyewear and optical products company, engaged One97 Communications Ltd. (Paytm) for digital advertising and related services in early 2022. Pursuant to purchase orders issued by the corporate debtor, the operational creditor rendered services and raised invoices accordingly. It was submitted that the corporate debtor made only one payment of ₹17,55,163 in July 2022 towards an earlier invoice and thereafter defaulted on the remaining dues. Despite repeated communications and recovery notices, the outstanding amount of ₹3,03,53,925.94 remained unpaid.

Procedural Background

The operational creditor issued recovery notices dated August 9, 2023 and September 6, 2023, followed by a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on July 1, 2024. Although settlement discussions were initiated between the parties, including a proposal for payment in instalments, no resolution was reached. Consequently, One97 Communications Ltd. filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC seeking initiation of CIRP against Eyemyeye Pvt. Ltd.

Issues

1. Whether the operational debt claimed by the petitioner met the statutory threshold under the IBC.

2. Whether default in payment of the operational debt was established.

3. Whether any pre-existing dispute existed between the parties that could bar admission of the petition.

Contentions of the Parties

The operational creditor contended that it had duly rendered services pursuant to valid purchase orders and raised invoices, which remained unpaid despite repeated demands.

It argued that the corporate debtor had failed to respond to statutory notices and had not raised any dispute regarding the debt.

The corporate debtor did not appear before the Tribunal to contest the application or raise any objections.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal examined the material on record, including invoices, payment details, and statutory notices. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., the Bench held that once default is established and no pre-existing dispute exists, the application must be admitted under Section 9 of the IBC. The Tribunal observed that the operational debt exceeded the statutory threshold, the default was clearly established, and the demand notice under Section 8 had been duly served. It further noted that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate the existence of any pre-existing dispute between the parties.

Decision

The NCLT admitted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and initiated CIRP against Eyemyeye Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal declared a moratorium and appointed Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal as the Interim Resolution Professional. It also directed the operational creditor to deposit ₹4,00,000 towards the initial CIRP costs.