# In the matter of Jitendra Kumar Singh
Vs. M/s Vishakarma Tool Works & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 437 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-07-25. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00327. The appeal arises from an order dated April 12, 2022, passed by the National Company Law…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 25 Jul 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00327
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/jitendra-kumar-singh-vs-ms-vishakarma-tool-works-anr-company-appeal-6d561a25

## Summary

### Background

The appeal arises from an order dated April 12, 2022, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which admitted an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by Vishakarma Tool Works (Operational Creditor) against Mor Mukat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The NCLT initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The appellant, Jitendra Kumar Singh, is the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.

## Facts

Vishakarma Tool Works (Operational Creditor) filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Mor Mukat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) for non-payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 3031780/-. These dues arose from the sale of pet moulds, injection moulds, and other machinery. The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor accepted deliveries without protest but later avoided payment by alleging defects. Invoices were raised between March and November 2016. A Section 8 notice was sent on September 12, 2019. The Corporate Debtor argued that the moulds were defective and the Operational Creditor failed to replace them. The NCLT initiated CIRP, observing that the Corporate Debtor relied on selective

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the mandatory notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was …

**Ratio:** Section 8(2) of the IBC, read with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the legislature used the word 'or' in Rule 5(2)(a&b),

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 8(2) and Rule 5 emphasizes that substantial

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT found sufficient compliance because the notice was

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Shreesha…
- **Appellants:** Jitendra Kumar…
- **Respondents:** M/s Mor Mukat…; M/s Vishakarma…
- **Advocates:** Kripa Shankar…; Ritu Rajk…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2019-01-01 — Company Petiti…**: Company Petition No.…
- **2019-09-12 — Section 8 Not…**: Mandatory notice under Section 8 of the…

## 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/jitendra-kumar-singh-vs-ms-vishakarma-tool-works-anr-company-appeal-6d561a25