# M/s APL Apollo Tubes Ltd vs. M/s Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Pvt Ltd

> NCLT judgment dated 2026-10-09. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLT-01243. M/s APL Apollo Tubes Ltd (Operational Creditor) filed a petition under Section 9 of the…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 9 Oct 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLT-01243
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-bengaluru/tanisha-scaffolding-india-pvt-ltd-2fshs

## Summary

### Background

M/s APL Apollo Tubes Ltd (Operational Creditor) filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against M/s Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Pvt Ltd (Corporate Debtor) for an alleged operational debt of ₹30,43,360/-. The petition was initially dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 05.09.2019 due to the Operational Creditor's failure to establish debt and default. The Operational Creditor appealed to the NCLAT, Chennai, which set aside the dismissal order on 11.06.2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, noting that uncontroverted pleadings could be deemed admitted.

## Facts

M/s APL Apollo Tubes Ltd (Operational Creditor) filed a Company Petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, against M/s Tanisha Scaffolding (India) Pvt Ltd (Corporate Debtor).

The petition sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for an alleged operational debt of ₹30,43,360/-.

The Adjudicating Authority initially dismissed the petition on 05.09.2019, finding that the Operational Creditor failed to establish the existence of debt and default, lacked purchase orders, and could not substantiate delivery and acceptance of goods.

The Operational Creditor appealed to the NCLAT (TA (AT) No. 206/2021).

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Operational Creditor has established an outstanding operational debt bereft of …

**Ratio:** An application under Section 9 of the IBC must be rejected if there exists a real dispute

…

**Reasoning:** The Corporate Debtor categorically denied the existence of the transactions for the

…

**Interpretation:** The Adjudicating Authority interpreted 'pre-existing dispute' broadly,

…

**Application:** Applying the principles laid down in *Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v.

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Shri. Sunil Kumar…; Shri. Radhakrishna…
- **Appellants:** M/s APL Apollo…
- **Respondents:** M/s Tanisha…
- **Other parties:** APL Apollo Tubes…
- **Advocates:** Mahima Khan…; Rishab…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2018-02-01 — Demand Notice…**: Operational Creditor issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code to the Corporate…
- **2018-02-05 — Demand Notice…**: The demand notice issued by the Operational Creditor was duly served on the Corporate…

## 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/nclt-bengaluru/tanisha-scaffolding-india-pvt-ltd-2fshs