# Ingram Micro India Private Limited vs. Bathla Teletech Private Limited

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-05-21. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00206. Ingram Micro India Private Limited (Appellant/Operational Creditor) filed a Section 9…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 21 May 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00206
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ingram-micro-india-private-limited-vs-bathla-teletech-private-limited-h9ia1

## Summary

### Background

Ingram Micro India Private Limited (Appellant/Operational Creditor) filed a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Bathla Teletech Private Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor) for an unpaid operational debt of Rs. 5,70,79,189.27/-. The debt arose from the supply of electronic goods, including iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and iPads, between March 3, 2021, and March 16, 2021. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejected the Section 9 application, concluding that a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties. This appeal challenges the NCLT's order.

## Facts

Ingram Micro India Private Limited (Appellant) is a distributor of IT and electronic products, including Apple products.

Bathla Teletech Private Limited (Respondent) is a reseller of electronic products, procuring from distributors including the Appellant.

On 30.09.2020, the Respondent issued a stamped balance confirmation acknowledging a balance payable to the Appellant.

On 25.02.2021, the Respondent accepted the Standard Sales Terms and Conditions of Ingram.

Between 03.03.2021 and 16.03.2021, the Appellant supplied various electronic goods, including iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and iPads, to the Respondent via invoices totaling Rs. 7.33 Crores.

Each invoice contained payment terms of 21 to 30 days.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Section 9 application on the ground of a …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority committed an error in rejecting the Section 9 application as

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT found that the NCLT's reliance on the Section 138 reply, the Local

…

**Interpretation:** The NCLAT interpreted the NCLT's decision as a misapplication of the legal

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the principles of IBC Section 9 and the *Mobilox Innovations

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Ingram Micro…
- **Respondents:** Bathla Teletech…
- **Advocates:** Krishnendu…; Sudhir…; +9 more

## Timeline

- **2020-09-30 — Balance Confirmation…**: Respondent issued a stamped balance confirmation informing the balance payable to the…
- **2021-02-25 — Terms and Conditions…**: Standard Sales Terms and Conditions of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8 — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

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/ingram-micro-india-private-limited-vs-bathla-teletech-private-limited-h9ia1