# In the matter of MN Takshila Industries Private Limited CP (IB) No. 243-9-HDB-2019

> NCLT judgment dated 2020-02-04. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLT-02083. Cerestra Advisors Private Limited, the Operational Creditor, filed a petition under Section 9…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 4 Feb 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLT-02083
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/mn-takshila-industries-private-limited-cp-ib-no-243-9-hdb-2019-89669cb3

## Summary

### Background

Cerestra Advisors Private Limited, the Operational Creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against MN Takshila Industries Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, for defaulting on a payment of Rs. 4,17,13,343/-. The Operational Creditor and the Fund Manager, Lighthouse Canton Pte Ltd, had an Advisory Agreement, and the Corporate Debtor, a Fund Subsidiary, was required to pay advisory fees for services availed. The Corporate Debtor only cleared Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the total amount due, leading to the petition.

## Facts

Cerestra Advisors Private Limited (Operational Creditor) and MN Takshila Industries Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) had a business relationship where the Operational Creditor provided advisory services. The Corporate Debtor, along with other fund subsidiaries, approached the Operational Creditor for services, leading to an Advisory Agreement dated 2016-09-05, followed by an addendum dated 2018-03-01. The Operational Creditor raised invoices amounting to Rs. 4,67,13,343/-, which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay within 30 days. The Corporate Debtor only paid Rs. 50,00,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 4,17,13,343/- outstanding. The last date of default was 2019-03-10. The Operational Creditor sent a demand notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code, 2016, on

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 is maintainable against the Corporate Debtor, …

**Ratio:** The Addendum Agreement established a direct relationship between the Operational Creditor

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLT reasoned that the Addendum Agreement amended the original Advisory Agreement and

…

**Interpretation:** The Addendum Agreement is interpreted as a binding amendment to the original

…

**Application:** The NCLT applied the ratio to the facts, finding that the Addendum Agreement

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ratakonda…; Narender Kumar…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Cerestra Advisors…
- **Respondents:** MN Takshila…
- **Advocates:** Rajew R…; Naresh Kumar…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2016-09-05 — Advisory Ag…**: Advisory Agreement executed between the…
- **2018-03-01 — Addendum Ag…**: Addendum Agreement executed among the Fund Manager, Operational Creditor, Corporate…

## 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/nclt-chandigarh/mn-takshila-industries-private-limited-cp-ib-no-243-9-hdb-2019-89669cb3