# In the matter of Spik Enviro Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vision Earthcare Pvt. Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-02-13. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00216. The appeal challenges an order dated 2023-06-06, dismissing an application filed by the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 13 Feb 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00216
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/spik-enviro-management-pvt-ltd-vs-vision-earthcare-pvt-ltd-8db71e37

## Summary

### Background

The appeal challenges an order dated 2023-06-06, dismissing an application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was dismissed because it did not meet the threshold of Rs. 1 crore as required by Section 4 of the Code. The Appellant had filed the application on 2020-08-18 for Rs. 2,77,68,000, allegedly due from the Corporate Debtor (CD). The Appellant claimed the date of default was 2019-01-24, based on an invoice raised as per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Agreement. The Appellant alleged that the director of the CD met with the director of the OC (Operational Creditor) to discuss technologies and seek help in spreading sustainable technologies. It was proposed that the OC/Appellant's director would

…

## Facts

Spik Enviro Management Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Vision Earthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/Corporate Debtor) for an alleged default of Rs. 2,77,68,000. The Appellant claimed the default date was 2019-01-24, based on an invoice raised as per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Agreement. The Appellant alleged that the director of the CD met with the director of the OC to discuss technologies and seek help in spreading sustainable technologies. An MOU was entered on 2018-06-15, where the OC agreed to facilitate projects for the CD, with a facilitation fee of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per MLD. The CD and the Appellant's director entered an agreement on 2018-11-25, appointing the director as a wholetime

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Corporate Debtor can raise its defence at the stage of Section 9 application without …

**Ratio:** The notice under Section 8 is a sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section

…

**Reasoning:** Section 8 serves to inform the Corporate Debtor of the default and provide an opportunity

…

**Interpretation:** Section 8 of the IBC mandates the issuance of a demand notice by the

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellant argued that since the Respondent did not reply to

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Naresh Sa…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Spik Enviro…
- **Respondents:** Vision Earthcare…

## Timeline

- **2023-06-06 — Order Da…**: Order dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency…
- **2020-08-18 — Application…**: Appellant filed application under Section 9 of the Code for an amount of Rs.…

## 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/spik-enviro-management-pvt-ltd-vs-vision-earthcare-pvt-ltd-8db71e37