# In the matter of Living Consumer Products Private Limited Through its duly Authorized Signatory Vs. Play Games 24x7 Private Limited CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1436 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-03-02. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00362. Living Consumer Products Private Limited (LCPPL), the Appellant, filed an appeal against the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 Mar 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00362
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/living-consumer-products-private-limited-through-its-duly-authorized-signatory-v-01a827cf

## Summary

### Background

Living Consumer Products Private Limited (LCPPL), the Appellant, filed an appeal against the order dated 14th October 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, which rejected its application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The application was filed against Play Games 24x7 Private Limited, the Respondent and Corporate Debtor, and was rejected on the ground of a pre-existing dispute. The Appellant claimed to have supplied digital marketing and advertising services to the Corporate Debtor as per a contract dated 09.07.2018, with operational dues in default amounting to Rs.6,35,13,977/-. The Corporate Debtor argued that a legal notice dated 23rd March 2019, sent before the demand notice,

…

## Facts

Living Consumer Products Private Limited (LCPPL) and Play Games 24x7 Private Limited entered into a contract dated 09.07.2018, where LCPPL was to provide digital marketing and advertising services to Play Games. LCPPL claimed that Play Games defaulted on payments amounting to Rs.6,35,13,977/-. LCPPL sent a notice under Section 8 of the IBC on 5th April 2019. Play Games responded on 15th April 2019, raising disputes about unauthorized use of brand keywords and incorrect geographical locations of leads. Prior to LCPPL's notice, Play Games had sent a legal notice dated 23rd March 2019, alleging unauthorized use of the brand name, overcharging, and collusion with employees. Play Games also relied on an investigation report from Deloitte Touche of March 2019. Play Games

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in rejecting the application under Section 9 of the …

**Ratio:** The existence of a pre-existing dispute, as defined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority relied on the judgment in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited

…

**Interpretation:** The term 'dispute' is interpreted broadly to include any disagreement or

…

**Application:** In this case, the Corporate Debtor had sent a legal notice dated 23rd March

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Anant Bijay…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Living Consumer…
- **Respondents:** Play Games 24x7…
- **Advocates:** Abhijeet…; Rohit G…; +8 more

## Timeline

- **2018-07-09 — Contract…**: Living Consumer Products Private Limited and Play Games 24x7 Private Limited entered into…
- **2018-12-15 — Respondent'…**: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited sent…

## 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/living-consumer-products-private-limited-through-its-duly-authorized-signatory-v-01a827cf