In the matter of DEVIKA UNIVERSAL LANDS PRIVATE LIMITED

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI, COURT-IV CP (IB)-319(ND)/2023 Under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

IN THE MATTER OF: M/S KARTIK MEDIA …Applicant/Operational Creditor VERSUS M/S DEVIKA UNIVERSAL LANDS PVT. LTD. …Respondent/Corporate Debtor

Order Pronounced On: 12.06.2025 CORAM: SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCES: For the Applicant : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Paresh Mishra, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Akhil Shankhwar, Advocate.

ORDER PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present Application is being filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority)

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025

Rules, 2016 by the Operational Creditor/Applicant herein namely M/s Kartik Media for the default in payment of the Operational Debt by Corporate Debtor heein namely M/s. Devika Universal Lands Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,26,78,453/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Six Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty-Three Only) arising out of the outstanding payments towards print media advertising/ outdoor advertisement campaigns. The Corporate Debtor failed and neglected to make the payments of the Invoices within 15 days from the date of Certification of the said Invoice, i.e. on or before 19.01.2023, 2. The Corporate Debtor herein M/s. Devika Universal Lands Private Limited having CIN U45200DL2014PTC263039, was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and having its registered office at SF-01, Stilt Floor, Devika Tower - 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Since the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated in New Delhi, this Tribunal having jurisdiction over the NCT of Delhi is the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Code in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.

3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT/OPERATIONAL CREDITOR: i. The Operational Creditor, M/s. Kartik Media is a Sole proprietorship firm having its Head-Office at B-840, First Floor, Sector 1, Rohini, North-West Delhi 110015, Delhi, India. ii. The present Application is being filed by Mr. Rajesh Gupta, the Authorised Signatory for the Operational Creditor, duly authorised vide Authority Letter dated 01.12.2022. iii. M/s. Devika Universal Lands Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act and having registered office at SF01, Stilt Floor, Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019, Delhi, India under CIN U45200DL2014PTC263039 and is engaged in the business of Real-Estate development, management, sale and related activities. iv. The Corporate Debtor approached the Operational Creditor sometime in the start of July, 2022 for print media advertising/outdoor advertising campaigns for its project "DEVIKA SADARR". The Corporate Debtor had in its scope of Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 work entailed that it would require printing of Advertisements for billboards (hoardings) and also wanted to rent prominent locations in Delhi, NCR for specific dates to be confirmed specifically during the tenure of services rendered, thus offering a complete work order which including printing of flex as well as service of renting Billboards (hoardings) for the dates specified by the corporate Debtor. v. In order to capture the proposal in writing the Corporate Debtor issued a Work Order dated 05.07.2022, which was duly accepted by the Operational Creditor by appending its signatures on the same. vi.

In terms of the Work Order dated 05.07.2022 the time period for rendering services was mutually decided as 20.07.2022 to 20.09.2022. vii. The Operational Creditor as per the Work Order commenced its operations/services from 20.07.2022 and completed the work to the full satisfaction of the Corporate Debtor. viii. It is pertinent to note that till date no complaint/issue for the work done has ever been received from the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, in accordance with the services rendered the Operational Creditor raised its Final Bill dated 28.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Final Bill") amounting to Rs. 1,21,54,000/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Only) with the office of the Corporate Debtor. ix. The said Final Bill was duly certified by the Corporate Debtor vide letter of certification dated 04.01.2023. In accordance with the terms of the said Work Order the Bill after certification was to be cleared within Fifteen days (15 days) from the date of certification. Therefore, the said invoice amount was to be cleared on or before 19.01.2023. x. As no payment was made with respect to the outstanding bill till 22.01.2023, the Operational Creditor was constrained to send a letter/communication dated 23.01.2023 requesting the Corporate Debtor for clearance of the outstanding payment of the said Final Bill.

However, even after due delivery of the same the Corporate Debtor has willfully neglected to reply to the said letter or make any payment towards the Final Bill.

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 xi. The Operational Creditor had sent a Statutory Demand Notice dated 09.02.2023 under Section 8 of the Code, which had been delivered upon the Corporate Debtor, however, the same was not replied to within 10 days of the receipt of the Demand Notice and even till date. xii. Now therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,21,54,000/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Only) towards the invoices raised from time to time and accepted by Corporate Debtor for making payment and interest at the rate of 21% p.a. as per invoice till date of actual payment has become due and payable to the Operational Creditor. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT/CORPORATE DEBTOR: i. It is the case of the Respondent that the Applicant made exaggerated claims regarding its expertise and past successes in executing marketing campaigns for reputed developers. Pertinently, as on date no default has occurred, since the amounts as have been claimed by the Applicant are not in consonance with the mutually agreed terms at the time of issuance of Work Order as well as during the campaign. It was assured that the proposed print media campaign would directly lead to an increase in genuine investors willing to invest in the project solely due to the impact of the advertising campaign. ii. Based on these representations, the Respondent issued a Work Order dated 05.07.2022, agreeing to a print media campaign from 20.07.2022 to 20.09.2022, displaying 30 hoardings per day across various locations in Delhi for an estimated cost of Rs. 55,00,000 per month. iii. However, the actual execution of the campaign was highly deficient and not up to agreed standards, as poor placement of hoardings meant that the locations chosen were ineffective in attracting investors. Substandard quality of printed hoardings, and despite repeated complaints by the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant failed to improve the quality and placement. As a result of inefficient campaign execution, the campaign failed to generate interest, leading to negligible investor response. iv. The Applicant had originally claimed that it would strategically determine locations and duration based on its market research. However, the Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025

Respondent was compelled to accept substandard locations and dates, which severely impacted the campaign's success. v. The present dispute is not a case of operational debt but a clear case of a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of services rendered by the Applicant. vi. It is pertinent to mention herein that the amount payable was always contingent on the campaign's success, a fact acknowledged by both parties at the time of execution of the Work Order. vii. The Applicant failed to abide by the mutually agreed terms and demanded full payment despite the failure of the campaign. Numerous discussions were held regarding a reduction in fees, yet the Applicant unilaterally raised a bill on 28.12.2022, despite the campaign ending on 20.09.2022, which itself demonstrates the existence of a dispute. The Applicant had indeed agreed to issue a revised invoice with a reduced amount. However, it was never shared with the Corporate Debtor, indicating a pre-existing dispute between the parties. viii. As per Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is a pre-existing dispute, Section 9 proceedings under the IBC cannot be used as a tool for debt recovery. ix. The Hon'ble CLB in Shri Rajeev Kwatra v. Shri Sunil Khanna 2006 129 Comp Case 373 CLB, held that where the facts are suppressed by the Applicant in a Application, the Applicant is not entitled of any relief. In view of the same, the present Application is liable to be dismissed. x. The present IBC cannot be used as an alternative mechanism for recovery suits. It is submitted that the objective of the Code is to develop credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship and facilitate more investment. If the present Application is admitted then the object of the Code would fail as the floodgates of this Adjudicating Authority will be thrown open to every seller or service provider who will put a company to extortion for recovering the money which is not due or payable. The Respondent in order to buttress its arguments relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh Patheja vs ICDS Ltd., AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 168,

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 and this Adjudicating Authority’s order in M/s India Design Worx Infrastructure Private Limited V/s M/s Premier Restaurant Private Limited. 5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: i. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the Applicant/Operational Creditor and the Respondent/Corporate Debtor and have perused the records filed along with the Application. ii. The present Application has been filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "Code") seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Devika Universal Lands Pvt. Ltd., for non-payment of an admitted operational debt amounting to ₹1,26,78,453/-, which includes the principal invoice amount and interest. iii. The case of the Applicant is that pursuant to a duly executed Work Order dated 05.07.2022, they rendered advertising services, including printing and installation of hoardings at designated locations as instructed by the Corporate Debtor for its project “DEVIKA SADARR”. The services were rendered during the agreed period from 20.07.2022 to 20.09.2022.

Upon completion of the services, the Applicant raised a final bill dated 28.12.2022 amounting to ₹1,21,54,000/-, which was certified without objection by the Corporate Debtor on 04.01.2023. As per the agreed terms, the certified amount was to be paid within 15 days of certification, i.e., by 19.01.2023. However, no payment was made despite reminders, and a statutory demand notice dated 09.02.2023 issued under Section 8 of the Code was duly served on the Corporate Debtor, who failed to send any reply thereto within the stipulated period or thereafter. iv. On the other hand, the Corporate Debtor disputes the maintainability of the present Application by asserting that there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties with regard to the quality, placement, and effectiveness of the advertisement campaign. It is contended that the Applicant failed to meet the agreed standards of execution and that the performance did not lead to the anticipated business outcomes. The Respondent claims that the Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 consideration for the campaign was contingent upon its success, and therefore the full amount raised in the invoice was not payable.

It is further submitted that there were communications and discussions regarding issuance of a revised bill, which was never shared, thus demonstrating an unresolved dispute. v. After perusing the records, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that the defence of the Corporate Debtor is not supported by any contemporaneous documents or written communication on record prior to the issuance of the demand notice that would demonstrate a genuine dispute. The Work Order was duly executed, and the services were performed over a defined period. Most significantly, the Final Bill dated 28.12.2022 was certified by the Corporate Debtor on 04.01.2023. The certificate dated 04.01.2023 further confirms that the Corporate Debtor had no objection to the services rendered and had unequivocally acknowledged its liability to pay. The language of the certificate is clear and unambiguous, wherein it is stated: “This is to confirm that your invoice bearing number 040/DEC/22-23 dated 28.12.2022 for the campaign carried out for Devika Sadarr, Qutab Road, Delhi - 110006, is accepted and found OK. The invoice is being transferred to the accounts department for necessary processing and payments.

You may note, that all payments shall be made to you as agreed.” vi. This communication evidences a categorical acceptance of the invoice amount and the absence of any dissatisfaction or dispute as on that date. The Corporate Debtor's own certification undermines its present stand and indicates a clear admission of debt and default. In fact, no written objections, complaints, or correspondence evidencing dissatisfaction or request for revision of invoice have been placed on record. vii. On the other hand, the Operational Creditor has filed an affidavit under section 9(3)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which shows that there is no notice given by the Corporate Debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt.

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 viii. Furthermore, the Corporate Debtor has not replied to the statutory demand notice dated 09.02.2023 served under Section 8 of the Code, which reinforces the inference that there was no bona fide dispute as on the date of demand. Mere bald assertions of dispute, without any substantiation through contemporaneous material, cannot be treated as a valid defence under the settled principles laid down in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353. In fact, the present defence appears to be an afterthought to resist the present proceedings. ix. The judgments relied upon by the Respondent are clearly distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of the present case, where a default is clearly established and the amount claimed qualifies as operational debt under the Code. x. In view of the foregoing, the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the present application meets all requirements under Section 9 of the Code and is liable to be admitted. 6. ORDER: In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present Application filed by the Operational Creditor fulfils the criteria laid down under the provisions of the Code. The Petitioner has established that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due arising out of professional services rendered by the operational creditor and the same is payable. Further, that the default amount is more than the minimum amount stipulated under section 4 (1) of the Code, stipulated at the relevant point of time. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is, hereby ordered as follows:

a. The application bearing CP (IB) No. 319/ND/2023 filed by M/s Kartik Media, the Operational Creditor, under Section 9 of the Code read with rule 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP against M/s Devika Universal Lands Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, is hereby admitted and CIRP is initiated. b. The Applicant in Part-III of the Application has proposed the name of Mr. Sudhanshu Gupta, having Registration Number IBBI/IPA-002/IP- Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025

N00216/2017-18/10668. His email ID is: sg_1973@rediffmail.com. Mr. Sudhanshu Gupta is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor. The consent of the proposed Interim Resolution Professional in Form-2, along with a valid AFA is taken on record. c. We direct the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with the Interim Resolution Professional, namely Mr. Sudhanshu Gupta, to meet out the expenses to perform the functions assigned to him in accordance with regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. The needful shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of this order by the Operational Creditor. The amount, however, be subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors, as accounted for by Interim Resolution Professional, and shall be paid back to the Operational Creditor. d. We also declare moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. The necessary consequences of imposing the moratorium flows from the provisions of Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Code. Thus, the following prohibitions are imposed: (a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, Adjudicating Authority, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (d)The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 (e) The IB Code 2016 also prohibits Suspension or termination of any license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concessions, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period. e. It is made clear that the provisions of moratorium shall not apply to transactions which might be notified by the Central Government or the supply of the essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor as may be specified, are not to be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period. In addition, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 which has come into force w.e.f. 06.06.2018, the provisions of moratorium shall not apply to the surety in a contract of guarantee to the corporate debtor in terms of Section 14 (3)(b) of the Code. f. The Interim Resolution Professional shall perform all his functions contemplated, inter-alia, by Sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of the Code and transact proceedings with utmost dedication, honesty and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code, Rules and Regulations. It is further made clear that all the personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor, its promoters or any other person associated with the Management of the Corporate Debtor are under legal obligation under Section 19 of the Code to extend every assistance and cooperation to the Interim Resolution Professional as may be required by him in managing the day-to-day affairs of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. g. In case there is any violation committed by the ex-management or any tainted/illegal transaction by ex-directors or anyone else, the Interim Resolution Professional would be at liberty to make appropriate application to this Adjudicating Authority with a prayer for passing an appropriate order.

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025 h. The Interim Resolution Professional shall be under duty to protect and preserve the value of the property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as a part of its obligation imposed by Section 20 of the Code and perform all his functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code, Rules and Regulations. i. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the applicant, Corporate Debtor and IRP above named, by the Registry. In addition, a copy of the order shall also be forwarded to IBBI for its records. Applicant is also directed to provide a copy of the complete paper book to the IRP. A copy of this order is also sent to the ROC for updating the Master Data. ROC shall send compliance report to the Registrar, NCLT. j. Accordingly, the instant application filed under Section 9 of the Code, 2016 bearing IB/319(ND)/2023 stands admitted.

-Sd/- -Sd/- (ATUL CHATURVEDI) ( M A N N I SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Company Petition IB-319(ND)/2023 Date of Order: 12.06.2025