# M/s Phasorz Technologies Private Limited vs. M/s Inditrade Capital Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 6 May 2026. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLT-00494. M/s Phasorz Technologies Private Limited (Petitioner/Operational Creditor) filed a petition…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 6 May 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLT-00494
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-kolkata/ms-phasorz-technologies-private-limited-vs-ms-inditrade-capital-limited-tnohe

## Summary

### Background

M/s Phasorz Technologies Private Limited (Petitioner/Operational Creditor) filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against M/s Inditrade Capital Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The petition alleged a default of Rs. 3,58,74,381.45/- as of June 13, 2025. This operational debt arose from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated April 4, 2023, for the provision of healthcare services. An advance commission of Rs. 2,41,10,042/- plus taxes was disbursed by the Operational Creditor to Inditrade Business Consultants Limited, which was secured by an unconditional and irrevocable Corporate Guarantee from M/s Inditrade Capital Limited. Following a partial refund of

…

## Facts

The petition was filed by M/s Phasorz Technologies Private Limited (Petitioner/Operational Creditor) under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, against M/s Inditrade Capital Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor).

The Operational Creditor claimed a total operational debt of Rs. 3,58,74,381.45/- in default as of June 13, 2025.

The debt originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated April 4, 2023, between the Petitioner and Inditrade Business Consultants Limited for healthcare services.

An advance commission of Rs. 2,41,10,042/- plus taxes was disbursed by the Operational Creditor to Inditrade Business Consultants Limited.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a Section 9 petition for initiating CIRP is maintainable against a corporate guarantor for …

**Ratio:** A contract of guarantee is an independent contract, enforceable independently against the

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority found that the guarantee agreement was a distinct and

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the IBC to allow a direct proceeding against the

…

**Application:** The Respondent, M/s Inditrade Capital Limited, being the corporate guarantor,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SHRI. VINA…
- **Appellants:** M/s Phasorz…
- **Respondents:** M/s Inditrade…
- **Other parties:** Insolvency and…; Corporate…; +8 more
- **Advocates:** Pawan Jh…; Akhil S…

## Timeline

- **2023-04-04 — MoU and Deed of…**: Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and a Deed of Guarantee were executed between the…
- **2023-04-XX — Advance Commission…**: Operational Creditor disbursed an advance commission of Rs. 2,41,10,042/- plus taxes to…

---

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-kolkata/ms-phasorz-technologies-private-limited-vs-ms-inditrade-capital-limited-tnohe