# In the matter of Mr. C. Vijayakumar
Vs. M/s. Sahaj Bharti Travels & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 58 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-05-26. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00461. This case involves an appeal against the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 26 May 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00461
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-c-vijayakumar-vs-ms-sahaj-bharti-travels-anr-company-appeal-07409418

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench (Court-II), which admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) filed by the Respondent- ‘M/s. Sahaj Bharti Travels' (Operational Creditor). The Appellant, Mr. C. Vijayakumar, Managing Director of HCL Technologies Ltd., aggrieved by the said order, filed this appeal. The core dispute revolves around the Operational Creditor's claim for payment under a Minimum Guarantee Clause in their agreement for transport services with the Corporate Debtor, HCL Technologies Ltd.

## Facts

HCL Technologies Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) entered into an agreement dated 19.11.2015 with Sahaj Bharti Travels (Operational Creditor) for transport services. The agreement stipulated that invoices were to be raised within 60 days of service delivery. A minimum guarantee clause was included, requiring a minimum kilometer run for cabs. The agreement was extended till 31.12.2018. Disputes arose regarding the minimum guarantee payment. The Operational Creditor sent an email on 25.05.2018 regarding the minimum guarantee payment. The Corporate Debtor proposed a one-time settlement of Rs.20,58,818/- on 29.11.2018, which was not accepted. The Operational Creditor then issued a demand notice on 08.05.2019 under Section 8 of the IBC, claiming Rs.3,54,10,565/-. The Corporate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to issuance of Demand Notice …

**Ratio:** The legal principle applied is that a pre-existing dispute, as defined by the Supreme

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the email exchanges between the parties, particularly the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'pre-existing dispute' requires a genuine contention that

…

**Application:** The court applied this principle to the facts by noting that the Corporate

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** C. Vijaya…
- **Respondents:** HCL Technologies…; M/s. Sahaj Bharti…
- **Advocates:** Nakul D…; Sathvik Chandrashe…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2015-11-19 — Agreement…**: HCL Technologies Ltd. entered into an agreement with Sahaj Bharti Travels for transport…
- **2018-05-25 — Operational Creditor…**: Operational Creditor sent an email…

## 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/mr-c-vijayakumar-vs-ms-sahaj-bharti-travels-anr-company-appeal-07409418