# In the matter of SPML Infra Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-11-02. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-00879. The case involves an application filed under Section 60(5) of the Code, 2016 read with Rule 11…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 2 Nov 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-00879
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/spml-infra-limited-ae02d051

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed under Section 60(5) of the Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 by the Applicant/Corporate Debtor seeking dismissal of the application bearing IB – 424(ND)/2021 filed by the Respondent. The Respondent/Operational Creditor issued a Work Order dated 04.12.2018 to the Applicant/Corporate Debtor for civil work services. The Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 10,85,75,153/- between 29.12.2018 and 19.02.2019. The Applicant failed to commence the work as per the work order. The Applicant returned Rs. 7,04,36,886/- to the Respondent company, leaving Rs. 3,81,38,227/- outstanding.

## Facts

The Respondent/Operational Creditor issued a work order to the Applicant/Corporate Debtor on 04.12.2018 for civil work services, including demolition, dismantling, and fencing. The Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 10,85,75,153/- to the Applicant between 29.12.2018 and 19.02.2019. The Applicant failed to commence the work as per the work order. The Applicant returned Rs. 7,04,36,886/- to the Respondent, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,81,38,227/-. The Applicant argued that the outstanding amount is not an ‘Operational Debt’ because there was no commercial relationship in terms of supply of goods and services. The Respondent contended that the advance payment was for services to be provided by the Applicant, making it an operational debt. The work order specified

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a claim of refund of Advance …

**Ratio:** A debt which arises out of advance payment made to a corporate debtor for supply of goods

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered Section 5(21) of the IBC, 2016, which defines ‘operational debt’ as

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of ‘operational debt’ under Section 5(21) of the IBC, 2016,

…

**Application:** In this case, the Respondent made an advance payment to the Applicant for civil

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** BACHU VENKAT…; ATUL CHAT…
- **Respondents:** SPML Infra…; NAVKAR BUILDERS…

## Timeline

- **2018-12-04 — Work Order…**: Respondent/Operational Creditor issued a Work Order to Applicant/Corporate Debtor for…
- **2018-12-29 — Advance P…**: Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 10,85,75,153/- to the Applicant between 29.12.2018 and…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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-division-bench-court-i-chenn/spml-infra-limited-ae02d051