# In the matter of Pushti Impex Vs. Shree Satyanarayan Industrial Suppliers CA(AT)(Insolvency) 435-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-01-30. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00828. The Appellant, Pushti Impex, an Operational Creditor, filed a winding-up petition before the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Jan 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00828
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/pushti-impex-vs-shree-satyanarayan-industrial-suppliers-ca-94f6d835

## Summary

### Background

The Appellant, Pushti Impex, an Operational Creditor, filed a winding-up petition before the Bombay High Court under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. This petition was later transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, following the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. The NCLT rejected the application due to the perceived pre-existence of a dispute. The appellant then appealed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

## Facts

Pushti Impex, the Appellant and an Operational Creditor, initially filed a winding-up petition against Shree Satyanarayan Industrial Suppliers Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, before the Bombay High Court under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. This petition was subsequently transferred to the NCLT, Mumbai. The NCLT rejected the application based on the ground of a pre-existing dispute. The Appellant then appealed to the NCLAT. Critically, the Appellant filed Form-5 under Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, on July 17, 2017, without having issued a Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The proviso to Rule 5(1) requires the Appellant to submit all information

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application under Section 9 in Form-5 was maintainable when the Appellant failed to …

**Ratio:** The proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Appellant's failure to issue a Demand Notice under Section

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation centers on the strict adherence to procedural requirements

…

**Application:** In this specific case, the Appellant, Pushti Impex, failed to issue a Demand

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Pushti…
- **Respondents:** Shree Satyanarayan…

## Timeline

- **2016-12-14 — Winding-up Petition…**: Pushti Impex filed a winding-up petition before the Bombay High Court under Section…
- **2017-07-17 — Form-5 F…**: Pushti Impex filed Form-5 under Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8(1) — 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/pushti-impex-vs-shree-satyanarayan-industrial-suppliers-ca-94f6d835