Schneider Electric India Private ... vs Sarkun Solar Private Limited

Schneider Electric India Private ... vs Sarkun Solar Private Limited on 1 December, 2025 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1259 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sarkun Solar Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Ms. Geetali Hazarika and Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Shaurya Shyam and Ms. Varsha Mohanty, Advocates. WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1262 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sarkun Solar Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Ms. Geetali Hazarika and Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Shaurya Shyam and Ms. Varsha Mohanty, Advocates. ORDER (Hybrid Mode) 01.12.2025 : These two appeals have been filed by the appellant who is an operational creditor challenging the order passed by the adjudicating authority refusing to admit Section 9 application filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant was entrusted certain work in different projects by the respondent herein. According to the appellant the work was completed in 2017 certain payments were received by the appellant, however, there was amount due with respect to which the appellant has issued an email dated 22.02.2019 claiming the details of outstanding of both the projects i.e., "Karnataka Project" & "Punjab Project". 3. The email was replied on 22.02.2019 by the corporate debtor, however, there was no resolution of any claim which was made by the appellant. The appellants thereafter gave a notice under Section 8 to the corporate debtor on 11.07.2022 which notice was not replied by the corporate debtor and thereafter Section 9 application was filed on 21.08.2022 being C.P. (IB) No. 785/ND/2022 & C.P. (IB) No. 778/ND/2022 respectively. 4. Section 9 application was replied, where corporate debtor denied its claim and raised issue of pre-existing dispute between the parties and relied on contemporaneous correspondence. Adjudicating authority heard the parties and by the impugned order has dismissed the Section 9 application on the ground that there is a pre-existing dispute.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 2 of 8 5. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order impugned rejecting Section 9 application has filed these appeals. 6. It is submitted that the appellant has completed the project in 2017 and outstanding dues were there with regard to which email was issued by the appellant in 2019 giving the details of outstanding of both the "Karnataka Project" and the "Punjab Project" and although the emails were replied on 22.02.2019, however in a vague manner saying that there are losses cause to the corporate debtor and there are issues regarding warranties, however, after above the corporate debtor never came with any details of losses and has not taken any steps for resolution. The adjudicating authority committed error in rejecting the application on the ground of pre-existing dispute whereas the pre-existing dispute raised by the corporate debtor was a moonshine defence. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submissions of the appellant contend that the project was not fully completed by the operational creditor and there were various deficiencies which were pointed out from time to time of emails for the year 2017 & 2018 which has been referred by the adjudicating authority which clearly reflect the pre-existing dispute between the parties and adjudicating authority has rightly dismissed the section 9 application.

It is submitted that there was issue of warranty also between the parties which has been noticed. 8. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 3 of 8 9. The email which has been relied by the appellant by which the details outstanding of different invoices of both the projects is email dated 21.02.2019 which is brought on record as Annexure - 16 to the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259/2025 with respect to both the project "Karnataka Project" & "Punjab Project". With regard to "Karnataka Project" the total outstanding claimed was Rs.8,79,68,530/- and with regard to "Punjab Project" the total outstanding claimed was Rs.20,63,85,616/-. After receipt of the above email, the reply was given by the corporate debtor on 22.02.2019. It is useful to notice email dated 22.02.2019, which is as follows: "From: Sarvesh Singh Sent: 22 February 2019 15:10 To: Deborshi BALL Cc: Amit Prakash; Arun Tandon; Bhupesh ARORA; Gulshan Kumar RIKHI; Vivek Choudhary; Priyanka GOEL; Anurag GARG; 'Kunal Mahajan'; Anurag Prakash Subject: RE: 70MW & 150 MW Project Financial details Dear Sir, We acknowledge with thanks the receipt of trailing email while going through your email apparently you have not deducted the losses we have incurred due to non completion of works and denial of services under warrantee.

However we will review in totality and revert back to you. With warm regards, Sarvesh +91-9911508282" Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 4 of 8 10. The adjudicating authority has in the impugned order noticed the relevant emails of 2017 & 2018, where the corporate debtor has consistently apprised the applicant of the delay and non-completion of works, resulting in substantial generation of the losses on a daily basis. Paragraph 12 of the impugned order is as follows: "12. We note that the Respondent, vide letter dated 15.01.2018, raised concerns regarding delays in execution of works and referred to its earlier communications dated 10.05.2017, 11.05.2017, 27.05.2017, 20.06.2017, 11.08.2017, and 12.08.2017, wherein the Respondent consistently apprised the Applicant of the pendency and non- completion of works, resulting in substantial generation losses on a daily basis. It was further alleged that instead of undertaking rectification of the defective works and materials, the Applicant suspended the warranty and abandoned the project without formal handover, thereby aggravating the Respondents' operational and financial difficulties.

Additionally, vide emails dated 11.08.2017, 12.08.2017, and 19.08.2017, the Respondent reiterated the substandard quality of goods supplied by the Applicant. Moreover, through its email dated 21.08.2017, the Respondent highlighted its continued efforts to engage the Applicant for addressing multiple critical issues, including modification of faulty inverters, defective system designs, and oil leakages, which remained unresolved." 11. When we look into the email which is relied by the appellant where outstanding was communicated, the corporate debtor immediately on 22.02.2019 claimed that the losses of the corporate debtor have not been accounted for and other issues were raised which clearly indicates that the claim of the appellant was not admitted or acknowledged by the corporate debtor and dispute was raised. The contemporaneous email of 2017 & 2018 as referred to in paragraph 12 reflected the contemporaneous correspondence Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 5 of 8 between the parties and reflect the relevant issue at the time when project being completed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents have not come up with the details of the losses which they are claiming in as far as bill payments of the outstanding amount of the appellant has not been disputed, hence the respondents were obliged to make the payment and amounts are undisputed.

13. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the background of the facts as noticed by the adjudicating authority and especially the email of 21.02.2019 and 22.02.2019 as extracted above, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that claim of the appellant was never acknowledged and the corporate debtor has raised the issues at the relevant time pointing out deficiency in service and for non-completion of the work. The demand notice was issued by the appellant on 11.07.2022 i.e., more than three years after the completion of work as per the appellant. The issues which are sought to be raised by the appellant before the adjudicating authority are the issue which cannot be decided in proceeding under Section 9 of the IBC. The defence which was taken by the corporate debtor in reply to Section 9 application cannot be said to be a moonshine defence. 14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mobilox Innovations Private Limited' Vs. 'Kirusa Software Private Limited ' reported in [2018 1 SCC 353], has laid down the proposition how the dispute is to be find out Comp.

App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 6 of 8 within meaning of Section 9(5)(i)(d) of the IBC. In paragraph 51, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following: "51. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(i)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the "existence" of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed.

The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." 15. When we applied the ratio of the above judgment in the facts of the present case, the defence raised cannot be said to be a moonshine defence or defence which is unsupported by the facts. Relevant emails as noticed by the adjudicating authority and noticed by this Tribunal, clearly indicates that claim of appellant was not admitted or acknowledged and there was pre- existing dispute between the parties. The course open for the appellant was to take remedy for recovery of amount as per the contract between the parties and present was not a case for getting the issues adjudicated in proceeding under Section 9. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 7 of 8 16. We thus are of the view that adjudicating authority has rightly rejected Section 9 application, however, this rejection shall not preclude the appellant to take such remedy as available under the contract between the parties in accordance with the law.

With these observations, both the appeals are dismissed. [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1259 & 1262 of 2025 8 of 8