In the matter of INTERNATIONAL PRINT-O-PAC LIMITED

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL COURT-V, NEW DELHI CP IB NO. 189/(ND)/2025 An Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S SAARTHAK VANIJYA INDIA PVT. LTD. BDS COMPLEX, B 38/A-2, MAHMOORGANJ RATHYATRA ROAD VARANASI-221010 …Applicant/Operational Creditor Versus M/S INTERNATIONAL PRINT-O-PAC LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE: A-19, GROUND FLOOR, FIEE, OKHLA PHASE-II, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SOUTH DELHI, NEW DELHI-110020

...Respondent/Corporate Debtor

Order Delivered on: 18.09.2026 CORAM: SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MS. REENA SINHA PURI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCES: For the Applicant : Adv. Suhas Puthige For the Respondent: Adv. Abhishrut Singh

CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026

ORDER

1. The present application is filed by M/s Saarthak Vanijya India Pvt. Ltd., the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC1, seeking initiation of the CIRP2 against M/s International Print-O-Pac Limited, the Corporate Debtor. 2. The Petition has been filed on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has failed to make payment of a total sum of Rs. 7,29,27,564/-. The demand notice dated 24.02.2025 under Section 8 of the Code, has been annexed to the Application3. 3. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated4 on 11.12.1981 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at A-19, Ground Floor, Fiee, Okhla Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Estate, South Delhi, New Delhi- 110020. Since the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated in New Delhi, this Adjudicating Authority has territorial jurisdiction over the present matter. Averments of the Applicant 4. The Applicant and Corporate Debtor were engaged in business transactions relating to the supply of printing paper, since July 2015. Numerous invoices were raised by the Applicant against the Corporate Debtor till 2020, with the last invoice raised on 28.01.2020. Regular payments were being made by the Corporate Debtor till August 2019 on a running account basis. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor stopped making payments and amount of Rs. 7,29,27,564/- became due and payable by the Corporate Debtor. 5. Subsequently, emails were written by the Applicant to the Corporate Debtor for payment of the unpaid invoices; however, no reply or dispute was raised by the Corporate Debtor to the said emails. Eventually, on 30.03.2022, the liability of Rs. 7,29,27,564/- was admitted by the Corporate Debtor in email

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process 3 Annexure A-10 at Page 296 of Application 4 As per Master Data of CD annexed as Annexure A-4 at Page 42 of Application CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026 dated 30.03.2022. Despite this, no effort was made by the Corporate Debtor to clear the aforementioned dues. 6. Thereafter, on account of default in payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 7,29,27,564/-, a demand notice dated 24.02.2025 was served upon the Corporate Debtor, calling it to pay the outstanding principal amount of 7,29,27,564/- along with 6% interest per annum. In response, a reply dated 10.03.2025 was served upon the Applicant, wherein false and frivolous dispute was raised as an afterthought. 7. Since, the debt remains unpaid and outstanding, thus, the present Petition has been filed by the Applicant. REPLY OF CORPORATE DEBTOR 8. The Petition filed by the Applicant is barred by limitation as the last invoice relied upon, is dated 28.01.2020; while the Petition was filed before this Adjudicating Authority on 22.03.2025. 9. The Petition has been challenged on ground of maintainability as the parties herein are undergoing dispute before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 7,29,27,564 was filed by the Applicant itself against the Corporate Debtor herein. It is thus contended that the filing of the present Petition amounts to forum shopping and is barred by Res-Subjudice and estoppel. 10. It is stated that contents of Part IV of the Petition are false as there is no existence of Operational Debt which is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor herein. The invoices and e-way bills, based on which Operational Debt is claimed do not have any delivery receipts; and these invoices and documents are falsely manufactured by the Applicant to mislead this Adjudicating Authority. 11. Also, pre-existing dispute pertaining to quality of services rendered by the Applicant was raised prior to the issuance of Section 8 Demand Notice. A pre-existing dispute was also raised by the Corporate Debtor in response to the Demand Notice issued under Section 8 of IBC by the Applicant. The raised

CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026 dispute pertained to non-proof of delivery of goods made to the Corporate Debtor; unsigned invoices; supply of poor quality of material which caused huge losses to the Corporate Debtor; absence of any document evidencing a right to claim interest; and absence of proof of receipt of goods, for which outstanding amount has been claimed by Applicant. 12. The present Petition has been wrong instituted as it has been signed and filed by one Mr. Chandra Kanti Paul stating to have been authorized vide Board Resolution dated 15.12.2024. However, the said resolution gives joint authorization and not several authorization, to file the Petition to Shri Krishan Kumar Khemka and Mr. Chandra Kanti Paul. 13. In view of the foregoing, it has been contended that the Petition is misconceived and lacks bonafide on part of the Petitioner; and so is liable to be dismissed. REJOINDER BY THE APPLICANT 14. Although, the last invoice is dated 28.01.2020, an unequivocal acknowledgement of subsisting debt of Rs. 7,29,27,564/- was given by the Corporate Debtor vide email dated 30.03.2022. This constitutes a valid acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and extends the limitation period which would expire on 30.03.2025. The present Petition was filed on 22.03.2025 and so, is not barred by limitation. 15. The commercial suit was filed by the Applicant on 28.03.2025 i.e., after filing of the present Petition; before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as a precautionary measure to safeguard the limitation period. The said suit therefore, cannot be construed as pre-existing dispute because it was instituted after the filing of the present Petition. 16. In view of acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor vide email dated 30.03.2022 and that no dispute existed prior to the issuance of Section 8 demand notice, any defence raised by the Corporate Debtor in its reply to the Section 8 demand notice is illusionary and a mere afterthought, which is liable to be disregarded. Also, no evidence has been produced by the CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026

Corporate Debtor to demonstrate that a dispute existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice. 17. It has further been stated that Sh. Chandra Kanti Paul is duly authorized to sign and file the present Petition. Also, the interest claimed by the Applicant is lawful. Thus, attempt of the Corporate Debtor to oppose the present Petition is solely to frustrate the insolvency process and delay the payments. Hence, it is contended that the Petition is maintainable. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 18. We have heard the Counsels for the Applicant and Corporate Debtor and have perused the Petition, Reply, Rejoinder and Written Submissions of both the parties. 19. The present Petition has been filed on account of outstanding debt of Rs. 7,29,27,564/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 30.03.2022, arising out of the unpaid invoices issued by the Applicant to the Corporate Debtor, against the supply of printing paper. 20. The present Petition has been challenged by the Corporate Debtor on grounds of limitation and pre-existing dispute. This brings before us the following two issues to adjudicate upon, in the present matter: I. Whether the present Petition is barred by limitation; and II.

Whether pre-existing dispute existed between the parties prior to issuance of Section 8 demand notice. ISSUE I 21. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the 3 year limitation window from the date when right to apply accrues, for the proceedings initiated in IBC. 22. In the present case, the right to apply accrues on the date of issuance of last invoice i.e., 28.01.2020. By applying the principles laid down in Re: Cognizance for Extension of limitation (2022), the limitation period would have originally expired on 13.01.2025. However, on perusal of record, we note that CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026 an acknowledgement of the entire outstanding debt amount of Rs. 7,29,27,564/- was given by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant herein, vide email dated 30.03.20225. In terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963; such written acknowledgement before the expiry of the original limitation period gives rise to fresh limitation period. Accordingly, the limitation period would expire on 30.03.2025. 23. We note that the instant Petition was filed by the Applicant on 17.03.2025 i.e., a few days prior to the expiry of limitation period.

The Petition thus, is not barred by the Limitation period. ISSUE II 24. Provisions entailed in IBC specifies that Petition filed under Section 9 of IBC is liable to be dismissed if there exists any pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor is required to show proof of pre-existing dispute within 10 days of issuance of Section 8 demand notice. The said dispute however, shall be existing prior to the receipt of Section 8 demand notice, in terms of the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited6. Hence, as a settled position jurisdiction under Section 9 can be invoked only where the operational debt is undisputed. 25. In the present matter, pre-existing dispute has been raised by the Corporate Debtor in relation to the quality of goods supplied to it by the Applicant. However, on perusal of record, we note that no evidence has been brought on record by the Corporate Debtor to corroborate that the dispute in relation to the quality of material supplied was raised by the Corporate Debtor prior to the issuance of Section 8 demand notice.

In absence of such evidence, we are of a view that the dispute has been raised by the Corporate Debtor for the first time, after the issuance of the demand notice, in its reply to such demand notice. As a settled position, the raising of any dispute as an afterthought cannot be construed as ‘pre-existing dispute’.

Annexure-A8 at Pages No. 272 and 273 of Vol. II of the Petition. (2018) 1 SCC 353 CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026

26. We also note that pre-existing dispute has been claimed by the Corporate Debtor on the pretext of commercial suit pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. There exists no clarity regarding the date of institution of such suit, as the Applicant in its Reply claims it to be 28.03.2025; while the Corporate Debtor in its Written Submissions claims it to be 25.04.2025. However, it is imperative to consider that in either case, the said suit was instituted by the Applicant after the issuance of demand notice under Section 8 i.e., 24.02.2025. In view of this, the Corporate Debtor is mistaken in claiming the existence of dispute, prior to the invocation of Section 9 proceedings. 27. In view of the foregoing, we are of a considered view that the present Petition is not barred by limitation and that no pre-existing dispute exists between the parties. 28. Accordingly, CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 filed by M/s Saarthak Vanijya India Pvt. Ltd., the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP against M/s. International Print-O-Pac Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, stands admitted. 29. The Applicant has proposed the name of Mr. Gaurav Katiyar to be appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA- 001/IP-P00209/2017-18/10409. However, his AFA expired on 31.12.2025. Therefore, this adjudicating Authority, from the Panel of IPs as provided by IBBI, hereby appoints Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parakh, Registration Number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00272/2017-18/10516 Email: parakh.rajesh@gmail.com as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor to carry out the functions as per the Code. The appointed Interim Resolution Professional is directed to give his written consent in Form 2 as required under rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy [Application to Adjudicating Authority] Rules, 2016 along with a copy of registration certificate as well as a valid AFA within 5 days of receipt of this order.

CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026

30. We direct the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with the Interim Resolution Professional, namely Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parakh, to meet out the expense 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. 31. 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, tribunal, 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.

(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 CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026 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.” 32. 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.

33. 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’. 34. 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 Tribunal with a prayer for passing an appropriate order. 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.

35. 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

CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026 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.

SD/- SD/- (REENA SINHA PURI) (MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

CP IB No. 189/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 18.09.2026