# In the matter of Morex Corporation Ltd. vs. Jindal Poly Films Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-07-24. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00314. M/s Morex Corporation Limited (Appellant) filed an appeal against the order dated 14.12.2023…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 Jul 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00314
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/morex-corporation-ltd-vs-jindal-poly-films-ltd-08974329

## Summary

### Background

M/s Morex Corporation Limited (Appellant) filed an appeal against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj, which rejected their Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The dispute arose from a business understanding between the Appellant and Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (Respondent) for the supply of non-woven fabric for export to China.

## Facts

M/s Morex Corporation Limited (Appellant) and Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (Respondent) entered into a business understanding for the supply of non-woven fabric for export to China.

The Appellant issued a Purchase Order on 12.03.2020 and made advance payments of Rs.1.61 crores and Rs.1.38 crores to the Respondent.

The Respondent was required to hand over the cargo to the Forwarder by 23.03.2020.

The Government of India issued a notification on 19.03.2020 prohibiting the export of the contracted materials due to Covid-19.

The Appellant terminated the contract on 01.04.2020 and requested a refund of the advance amount.

The Appellant issued a demand notice on 15.05.2020 under Section 8 of the IBC to the Respondent.

The Respondent sent a Notice of Dispute on 20.05.2020.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was right in holding that the Section 9 application deserved to …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority is only to take notice that a dispute was in existence prior

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT considered the communications exchanged between the Corporate Debtor and the

…

**Interpretation:** The existence of a dispute prior to the demand notice is sufficient to reject a

…

**Application:** The NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** M/s Morex…
- **Respondents:** Jindal Poly Films…
- **Advocates:** Gaurav Ke…; Gaurav Ch…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **12.03.2020 — Purchase…**: Appellant issued a Purchase Order…
- **04.03.2020 — Advance P…**: Appellant made advance…

## 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/morex-corporation-ltd-vs-jindal-poly-films-ltd-08974329