Ameet Enterprises vs Electrotherm (India) Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 954 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the operational creditor's claim has been fully discharged by the corporate debtor before admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no debt or default subsists on which the application can proceed, and the Adjudicating Authority is entitled to dispose of the application as infructuous. Where the operational creditor does not dispute receipt of the amount claimed but asserts further sums such as additional amounts or interest, such unquantified or unestablished residual claims do not keep an application under Section 9 alive; the appropriate course for the creditor is to pursue those claims through remedies available in law outside the insolvency proceeding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 954 of 2026 & I.A. No. 3800 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Ameet Enterprises A Proprietorship Concern Having ...Appellant(s) Mr. Sangeet Hisaria as The Sole Proprietor Versus Electrotherm (India) Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Madaan, Mr. Gauravdeep Bhal, Mr. Kumar Sparsh, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Mr. Shivam Shukla, Advocates
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
01.07.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for Parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 18/03/2026
by which Order, Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant has been
dismissed as infructuous. On 18/03/2026 following Order was passed by
the Adjudicating Authority :
ORDER
"In terms of the last order dated 06.03.2026, the respondent/corporate debtor has placed an affidavit along with proof of deposit/payment of the remaining balance amount of Rs.3,84,939/- through RTGS, which is confirmed by the advocate on record for the applicant/QC. Since the entire amount of debt and default involved in the present case has already been paid by the respondent/corporate debtor before admission. Therefore, nothing survives in the present matter. Accordingly, C.P.(IB)/275(AHM)2025 is disposed of being rendered infructuous."
3. Shri G.P. Madaan, appearing for the Appellant submitted that although
the Appellant does not dispute the receipt of the amount Rs. 4,63,28,723.00/-
but there are some additional amount to which Appellant is entitled, hence
the Section 9 Application ought not to have been closed.
4. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Ld. Senior Counsel for Respondent submitted that
an additional-Affidavit has been filed by the Corporate Debtor where details of
payment of Rs. 4,63,28,723.00/- has been noticed and the undisputed debit
notes of Rs. 9,67,940/- was also mentioned in Paragraph 3.
5. In Paragraph 2 and 3 of the additional-Affidavit, following has been
stated:-
"2. I say that as stated in the affidavit dated 8.11.2025 filed by the Corporate Debtor, pending the petition, the Corporate Debtor has made payment of Rs.4,68,28, 723 /- to the petitioner through RTGS. A table evidencing the said payment is reproduced herein below:-
Date Amount in Rs. UTR No.
30/10/2025 3,50,00,000.00 RTGS Dr-IDIB000F523-AMEET ENTERPRISES- AHMEDABADYESBR52025103056508411 04/11/2025 50,00,000.00 RTGS Dr-IDIB000F523-AMEET ENTERPRISES-AHMED ABADYESBR52025110456540251 04/11/2025 50,00,000.00 RTGS Dr-IDIB000F523-AMEET ENTERPRISES- AHMEDABADYESBR52025110456542503 07/11/2025 18,28,723.00 RTGS Dr-IDIB000F523-AMEET ENTERPRISES- AHMEDABADYESBR52025110756555301 2 of 4 4,68,28, 723.00
3. I say that a perusal of affidavit dated 5.11.2025 filed by the petitioner would reveal that it is an undisputed fact that 5 debit notes worth Rs. 9,67,940.44 have been served on the petitioner by the Corporate Debtor before the issuance of Demand Notice under the provisions of the 1B Code. The only grievance raised by the petitioner in this affidavit qua 5 debit notes is that the debit notes which relates to the issue of quality / short supply of goods is not accepted by the petitioner. It is to state that for the purposes of present petition u/ s. 9 of the 1B Code, the acceptance or non- acceptance of a particular debit note becomes irrelevant. The fact remains that all the 5 debit notes were served to the petitioner before issuance of demand notice which constitutes a preexisting dispute."
6. Adjudicating Authority has also noticed about the payment of
balance amount in the impugned order of Rs. 3,84,939.00. The
submission of the Appellant that there were certain additional amount
which were required to be paid to the Operational creditor and some
amount towards interest, does not commend us. When entire Part IV
amount is paid, Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in
dismissing Section 9 Application as infructuous.
7. In the even if any other claims are there of the Appellant, it is
always open for the Appellant to take such remedies as available in law.
3 of 4
8. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
4 of 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free