# In the matter of Law & Kenneth Saatchi & Saatchi Private Limited vs. Patanjali Paridhan Private Limited

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-11-14. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00090. Law & Kenneth Saatchi & Saatchi Private Limited, the Operational Creditor (OC), filed an…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 Nov 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00090
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/law-kenneth-saatchi-saatchi-private-limited-vs-patanjali-paridhan-private-limite-91172514

## Summary

### Background

Law & Kenneth Saatchi & Saatchi Private Limited, the Operational Creditor (OC), filed an appeal against an order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad. The NCLT had dismissed the OC's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The OC had provided services for the production of a Television Commercial (TVC) for Patanjali Paridhan Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor (CD), under the terms of a proforma invoice dated 17.10.2018. A dispute arose regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the OC, which the CD claimed was necessary for registering the copyright of the TVC.

## Facts

Law & Kenneth Saatchi & Saatchi Private Limited (Operational Creditor) provided services to Patanjali Paridhan Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for the production of a Television Commercial (TVC) based on a proforma invoice dated 17.10.2018. The Operational Creditor raised a final invoice on 29.01.2019 for Rs. 2,06,50,000/-, of which Rs. 87,50,000/- was received as advance on 26.10.2018. The Corporate Debtor requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Operational Creditor to register the copyright of the TVC, as per Clause 26 of the proforma invoice. The Operational Creditor did not provide the NOC. The Corporate Debtor communicated its request for the NOC through emails dated 07.05.2019 and 05.06.2019 and a legal notice dated 08.09.2020. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a pre-existing dispute existed between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor …

**Ratio:** A 'pre-existing dispute' under the IBC refers to a dispute that exists before the receipt

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT considered the exchange of emails and letters between the parties, which

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'pre-existing dispute' under the IBC requires an

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT applied the ratio to the facts and found that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Yogesh K…; Ajai Das Me…
- **Appellants:** LAW & KENNETH…
- **Respondents:** PATANJALI…

## Timeline

- **2018-10-17 — Proforma Invo…**: Proforma invoice issued by the…
- **2018-10-26 — Advance P…**: Operational Creditor received an…

## 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/law-kenneth-saatchi-saatchi-private-limited-vs-patanjali-paridhan-private-limite-91172514