Vikesh Nanku Yadav vs M/S Enquest Petrosolutions Pvt. Ltd.& ...

Vikesh Nanku Yadav ....Appellant

Vs.

1. M/s. Enquest Petrosolutions Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent No.1 2. Madan Bajarang Lal Vaishnawa ....Respondent No.2

(Arising out of Order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai) in C.P. (IB)/99(MB)2025)

For Appellant: Ms. Geetika Sharma, Mr. Akash Agarwal, Advocates

For Respondent: Mr. Samiron Borkataky, Mr. Ikshvaaku Marwh, Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocates

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

This appeal is preferred by a suspended director of the corporate debtor who

challenges the Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 08.12.2025 in C.P.

(IB)/99(MB)2025 admitting the CD to CIRP under Section 9, IBC. 2

2. The facts fall within narrow compass. For the work which the respondent

has done at the instance of the appellant, it has raised as many as 56 invoices.

The total value of these invoices is Rs.7,29,59,159 out of which the GST

component is Rs.1,11,29,363/-. Of the 56 invoices so raised, the respondent has

raised tax invoices for 22 invoices. As to the rest, no tax invoices were raised.

3. Since the appellant defaulted in paying this money, both the appellant and

the respondent entered into a 'Vendor Settlement Agreement'. This was dated

29.03.2022. In this agreement, the appellant had admitted to his liability and

also agreed to pay the sum in 8 tranches of which the first tranche of

Rs.49,25,000/- was paid vide a cheque dated 18.08.2021. the second tranche

and the third tranche were respectively required to be honoured in April, 2022

and May, 2022. Payment of 4 to 8 tranches were required to be paid between

June and December, 2022. Since the obligation undertaken under the Vendor

Settlement Agreement was not honoured, the respondent issued a notice dated

10.04.2024 under Section 8, IBC. The CD issued its reply dated 29.05.2024

raising a dispute regarding delay in performing the work contract by the

respondent and that the CD was negotiating with the respondent to resolve all

the differences amicably. This apart, the CD also alleged that the respondent has

not raised tax invoices.

4. In these circumstances, the respondent had filed his petition under

Section 9 and this was contested by the CD along the lines it had indicated in

its reply to Section 8 notice.

3

5. And, the Adjudicating Authority eventually found merit in the contention

of the respondent, allowed its petition and admitted the CD to CIRP. This is now

under challenge.

6. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant laid considerable

thrust on the point that the appellant did not make payment since the tax

invoices were not raised. We, however, are not impressed with this statement.

On 29.03.2022, when both the appellant and the first respondent had entered

into the Vendor Settlement Agreement, it brings to an end whatever differences

might have been there earlier. This agreement provides for schedule for payment

of the invoice amount to the first respondent. And the appellant is not able to

show any new difference that has arisen after 29.03.2022. Indeed, only in its

reply to Section 8 Notice, the appellant has raised the issues of certain delay in

the performance of contract. Set in the context, this difference looks artificial. In

conclusion, we do not find any merit. The appeal is Dismissed.

I.A. No.1845 of 2026 is closed.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) rs/md