Rohit Plastopack Private Limited vs Dentsu Communications India ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Rohit Plastopack Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Mukerji Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitin Mishra, Ms. Khushbu Hora and Ms. Archita Nigam, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Anindita R. Chowdhury, Ms. Vatsala Rai and Mr. Sushrut Garg, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

13.08.2025: Heard counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for

the Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2025 passed

by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-VI rejecting a Section 9

application filed by the Appellant. Appellant has filed Section 9 application

against the Respondents- Corporate Debtor claiming that it has issued a

demand notice on 22.10.2021 for operational debt of Rs.5,19,76,264/- with

interest and on non-payment of debt Section 9 application has been filed. The

corporate debtor, in affidavit in reply to Section 9 application has refuted the

claim and raised several objections. The Adjudicating Authority heard the

parties and after considering the overall facts and circumstances took the

view that the entire sequence of the events indicates that there was no

genuine transaction and the fact that the transaction appears to be dubious and lack of credibility hence no operation debt is found on which proceeding

under Section 9 can be initiated.

3. Challenging the said order this appeal has been filed, the Ld. Counsel

for the appellant challenging the said order submits that the Operational

Creditor had received the order from the corporate debtor and confirmation

was also received from the corporate debtor and it was only on 08.10.2021

that email was received from corporate debtor informing that Mr. Sahil Arora

other personal who was handling the business had resigned and left the

business and appellant was asked to provide details, the letter further stated

that until and unless acknowledge the payments claimed by you the claim of

the appellant is disputed. The said email was sent on 08.10.2021 that is prior

to issuance of demand notice on 22.10.2021. It is submitted that the

appellant has made payment to Suumaya from whom the goods were

channelized hence it is appellant who has suffered loss. The fact that M/s

Suumaya Industries Limited and the corporate debtor are facing investigation

as referred to in paragraph 5.12 of the impugned order is not relevant for

appellant's case. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the

large number of fictitious transactions were done in the similar nature and

similar proceedings were initiated the claim of the appellant is denied and by

the Corporate Debtor which is clear from the email dated 08.10.2021. It is

submitted that it is all only paper transactions.

4. We have considered submissions of counsel for the parties and perused

the records.

2 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 904 of 2025

5. The Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that the alleged

transaction between the appellant and the corporate debtor appears to be

dubious and lack credibility. It is useful to extract that 5.8, 5.9 and 5.12 of

the impugned order which is as follows:-

"5.8 On perusal of the PO dated 07.06.2021 and 12.06.2021, it is noted that the orders were placed through emails sent by Mr. Shubham Tiwari (the then Project Coordinator of the Corporate Debtor/ex-employee) to Mr. Prince Shah (Director of the Applicant). However, it is noticed that although 4,240 quintal of rice; 7,410 quintal of wheat; and 1,210 quintal of toor dal, were purportedly ordered vide email dated 07.06.2021, the said email did not bear essential commercial details such as product specifications, price breakdown and quality standards of the agricultural goods to be supplied i.e., rice, wheat and toor dal. Further, the delivery location mentioned in the Purchase Order, i.e., "Binola Industrial Area, NH8, Gurgaon (Haryana)" appears vague and does not match with the delivery address mentioned in the invoices. Further, it is an undisputed fact that the Corporate Debtor does not have any office or warehouse located at "Binola Industrial Area, NH8, Gurgaon (Haryana)".

Incidentally, it is not the Corporate Debtor but, in fact, Suumaya Agro Limited, which has a warehouse in Binola Industrial Area (Haryana), as evident from perusal of Annual Report of Suumaya Industries Ltd. for 2020-2021 placed on record by the Corporate Debtor. Such glaring discrepancies cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the entire transaction.

5.9 Upon perusal of the facts and records, it is observed that the first communication for the quotation of agricultural products was made vide an email dated 06.06.2021 at 11:21 PM, by Mr. Shubham Tiwari (former employee) to the Operational Creditor. Surprisingly, on the very same day, i.e., 06.06.2021, the Operational Creditor, within minutes responded to the former employee vide email at 11:47 PM, providing quotations of the agricultural goods without any enquiry about the variety, category, quality or quantity of such agricultural goods. Within the next fifteen minutes, i.e., on 07.06.2021 at 12:01 AM, the Corporate Debtor's former 3 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 904 of 2025 employee issued the PO to the Applicant for 4,24,000 kgs of rice, 7,41,000 kgs of wheat and 1,21,000 kgs of toor dal. Thereafter, the entire consignment for 12,86,000 kgs of agricultural goods was allegedly procured from Suumaya Agro Ltd., loaded and dispatched on the same day, which raises serious doubts about the feasibility of executing such a massive order within an impossibly short timeline. A similar pattern was followed for the second Purchase Order dated 12.06.2021.

5.12 Further, the lorry receipts submitted by the Operational Creditor suffer from glaring irregularities and lack essential details such as freight charges, driver's information and tax components. Above all, none of the Goods Receipts (GRs) is found to have been signed and acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor or its employees as proof of receipt of goods. All these discrepancies further weaken the Operational Creditor's claim that a legitimate business transaction took place between the parties in the ordinary course of business. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the alleged transaction between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor appears to be dubious and lacks credibility and, hence, no operational debt within the meaning of Section 5(21) of the Code can be said to have arisen under Section 9 of the Code. The absence of essential commercial details in the POs, the contradictory delivery locations in the invoices and the irregularities in the transportation records raise serious doubts on the genuineness of the transaction. At this stage, it would not be out of place to take note of the Press Release dated 12.12.2024 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Mumbai Zone relevant extract of which is reproduced below:-

"Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Mumbai Zonal office conducted search operations on 10.12.2024, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 at 19 locations in Mumbai, Delhi and Gurgaon as part of an ongoing probe in Summaya- Dentsu case...... ED initiated investigation on the basis of FIR registered by Worli Police Station against M/s Dentsu Communications India Private Limited, M/s Suumaya Industries Ltd and its promoters including others. They are accused of conspiring together and embezzling the

4 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 904 of 2025 funds to the tune of Rs.137 Crore under the guise of promising future "Need to Feed programme' advantages. ED investigation so far has revealed that ........Accused persons have not received any contract from Government and there was no such program ever in existence either. Accused entities have in fact never supplied any Agro product materials for any such program. However, in order to create fake impression that it is supplying Agro products, the accused persons in this case connived and created fake records including fake lorry receipts and fake invoices".

The entire sequence of the event clearly indicates that the opinion

formed by the Adjudicating Authority coming to the conclusion that entire

transaction is dubious and lack credibility is based on sequence of the event

and facts of the present case. The issues which are sought to be raised in this

appeal cannot be gone into and adjudicated in the proceedings of Section 9 of

IBC. The appellant if so advised may take such remedy as available in law

with regard to its claim and amount paid to the Suumaya or any other. We

thus fully endorse view of the Adjudicating Authority that present is not a

case for admission under Section 9 of the IBC. We thus do not find any error

in the order. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

5 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 904 of 2025