# Rajendra Mittal vs. Semac Consultants Ltd

> NCLT judgment dated 2026-09-01. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLT-00999. Rajendra Mittal, proprietor of Mittal Construction Company (Operational Creditor), filed a…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 1 Sept 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLT-00999
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chennai/rajendra-mittal-vs-semac-consultants-ltd-7aafi

## Summary

### Background

Rajendra Mittal, proprietor of Mittal Construction Company (Operational Creditor), filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Semac Consultants Limited (Corporate Debtor) to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Petitioner claimed an operational debt of Rs. 2,79,85,341.44 for construction work, alleging non-payment despite satisfactory completion and approval of bills. The Corporate Debtor, in response, raised the issue of a pre-existing dispute, citing delays, defects, abandonment of the work site, sub-standard quality, and alleged excess payments made to the Petitioner. The Corporate Debtor also highlighted that the Petitioner had invoked arbitration prior to issuing the demand notice under IBC.

## Facts

Rajendra Mittal, proprietor of Mittal Construction Company (Petitioner/Operational Creditor), filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, against Semac Consultants Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor).

The petition seeks to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Semac Consultants Limited.

The Petitioner claimed an operational debt of Rs. 2,79,85,341.44.

The Petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of a main building and boundary work for V-Mart site at Palwal, Haryana, for Rs. 46,00,00,000/-.

The Petitioner completed the work in all respects on 30.09.2023 and submitted the final bill on 02.11.2023.

The final bill was approved by the Corporate Debtor on 01.02.2024 and shared via mail on the same date.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC is maintainable given the existence of a …

**Ratio:** An application under Section 9 of the IBC must be rejected if a notice of dispute has

…

**Reasoning:** The Corporate Debtor responded to the demand notice within 10 days, explicitly raising

…

**Interpretation:** The NCLT's jurisdiction under Section 9 is limited to verifying the existence

…

**Application:** Given that the Petitioner had already initiated arbitration and the Corporate

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SANJIV…; Venkataraman…
- **Appellants:** Rajendra…
- **Respondents:** Semac Consultants…; SEMAC Construction…
- **Advocates:** Aakansha…; Reshmi…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **2022-06-15 — Contract A…**: Petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of a main building and boundary work…
- **2022-08-11 — Dispute Correspondence…**: Emails and correspondences regarding delays and defects in work began (continuing until…

## 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-chennai/rajendra-mittal-vs-semac-consultants-ltd-7aafi