# In the matter of APL Apollo Tubes Limited vs. Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Private Limited

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-06-11. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00379. The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1285/2019 arises from the Impugned Judgment rendered by the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 11 Jun 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00379
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/apl-apollo-tubes-limited-vs-tanisha-scaffolding-1f3314b6

## Summary

### Background

The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1285/2019 arises from the Impugned Judgment rendered by the Adjudicating Authority on 05.09.2019. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under section 9 of the I&B Code for initiating CIRP proceedings against the Respondent, which was rejected. The Appellant claimed to have supplied manufactured products to the Respondent for marketing purposes, but the payment for these supplies was not remitted. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application because the Appellant's claim was not supported by respective Purchase Orders.

## Facts

APL Apollo Tubes Limited, the Appellant, is an Operational Creditor engaged in manufacturing steel pipes and tubes. Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Private Limited, the Respondent, is engaged in marketing the products manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed to have supplied manufactured products to the Respondent for marketing, but the payment was not remitted. The Appellant issued an invoice on 20.06.2017 and had issued three prior invoices that were not honored. A demand notice under section 8(1) of the I&B Code was issued on 01.02.2018 and served on the Respondent on 05.02.2018. The Respondent did not object to the demand notice. The Appellant filed an application under section 9 of the I&B Code for initiating CIRP proceedings, which was rejected by

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Appellant's application under Section 9 …

**Ratio:** The principle is that the Adjudicating Authority should not carve out a case for the

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority drew an inference based on a hypothetical interpretation of

…

**Interpretation:** This issue concerns the interpretation of Section 9 of the I&B Code and the

…

**Application:** In this case, the Adjudicating Authority's inference regarding the absence of

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** APL Apollo Tubes…
- **Respondents:** Tanisha Scaffoldin…

## Timeline

- **1986-02-24 — Appellant Inco…**: APL Apollo Tubes Limited…
- **2017-06-20 — Invoice…**: Appellant issued an…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/apl-apollo-tubes-limited-vs-tanisha-scaffolding-1f3314b6