# In the matter of Supreme Infrastructure Limited CP (IB)424-MB-2020

> NCLT judgment dated 2021-05-06. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLT-02186. G. L. Engineering Industries Private Limited, the Petitioner, filed an application under…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 6 May 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLT-02186
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/supreme-infrastructure-limited-cp-ib424-mb-2020-ae40a89b

## Summary

### Background

G. L. Engineering Industries Private Limited, the Petitioner, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Supreme Engineering Limited, the Respondent, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Petitioner claimed a default amount of Rs. 4,64,65,107/- as of 31.07.2019, plus delayed payment charges. The Petitioner's claim was based on the supply of steel materials to the Respondent on high seas sale basis and domestic local sales. The Respondent denied the debt, alleging that the confirmation letters and cheques issued were forged and fabricated, and that the Petitioner failed to provide necessary details and documents regarding the transactions.

## Facts

G. L. Engineering Industries Private Limited (Petitioner) claimed that Supreme Engineering Limited (Respondent) owed them Rs. 4,64,65,107/- as of 31.07.2019, plus delayed payment charges, for steel materials supplied. The Petitioner based their claim on two confirmation letters dated 30.05.2019 and 01.07.2019, and dishonored cheques. The Respondent denied signing the letters, claiming they were forged and fabricated. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to provide details of the goods supplied, relying on 'oral orders' and 'business practice'. The Respondent also stated that the cheques were given as security. The Petitioner submitted 37 invoices, but the Respondent demonstrated that these invoices had been fully paid. The Petitioner also claimed additional

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the existence of an operational debt as …

**Ratio:** Section 5(21) of the IBC defines 'operational debt' as a claim in respect of the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Petitioner must disclose the type and details of the goods

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 5(21) to require a clear demonstration of the

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by noting that the Petitioner failed

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SUCHITRA KANUPARTH…; Chandra Bha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** G L Engineering…
- **Respondents:** Supreme Engineerin…

## Timeline

- **2019-07-31 — Default…**: Petitioner claims default amount of…
- **2019-05-30 — Confirmation Le…**: Date of one of the confirmation…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(21) — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-5)

---

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/supreme-infrastructure-limited-cp-ib424-mb-2020-ae40a89b