Appellant Bharat Ajay Jaisinghani Offers to Deposit Full Operational Debt Amidst Pre-Existing Payment Dispute with Asier Metals Pvt. Ltd.; Tribunal Keeps Order in Abeyance Pending Further Hearing
In a significant development under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, on 9th October 2026, stayed the admission of a petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC against Polycab India Limited. The appeal was filed by Bharat Ajay Jaisinghani, a suspended director of Polycab, challenging the order dated 7th October 2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench.
The case concerns a petition filed by Asier Metals Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) alleging default by Polycab India Limited (Corporate Debtor) in payment of operational debt. The Operational Creditor had issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC on 6th August 2026, followed by a Section 9 application on 24th August 2026 seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against Polycab.
Bharat Ajay Jaisinghani, through Senior Advocate Arun Kathpalia, contended before the NCLAT that a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties regarding payments and issuance of credit notes. The dispute had been recorded in prior correspondence, which the Operational Creditor allegedly ignored before initiating insolvency proceedings.
Without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the Appellant expressed willingness to deposit the entire operational debt amount stated in Part IV of the Section 9 application. Citing the Appellant's status as a large, publicly listed company with significant revenue and extensive operations-Polycab reported standalone revenue of INR 2,81,851.77 million for FY 2025-26, with a market capitalization exceeding INR 1,030 billion and thousands of employees-the NCLAT bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Officiating Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member Technical), and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member Technical) found merit in the offer.
The Tribunal directed the Appellant to deposit the said amount by way of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the name of the Registrar, NCLAT, within one week. Meanwhile, the impugned order admitting the Section 9 petition was stayed and kept in abeyance pending further orders. The appeal is listed for hearing on 26th October 2026.
This ruling underscores the importance of addressing pre-existing disputes before insolvency proceedings are admitted and reflects the Tribunal's caution in balancing interests of operational creditors and corporate debtors. It also highlights the procedural safeguard available to corporate debtors who offer to pay the disputed operational debt amount to maintain their business continuity and protect their reputation.
Bottom Line:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - In appeal against admission of Section 9 application, where appellant asserted pre-existing dispute and expressed willingness, without prejudice, to deposit entire operational debt amount, NCLAT stayed impugned admission order and directed deposit of amount mentioned in Part IV of Section 9 application by way of FDR in the name of Registrar, NCLAT.
Statutory provision(s):
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 8, 9
