Introduction
In a judgment titled Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritco Travels & Travels Pvt Ltd[i]*, *the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) held that corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP’) proceedings under s. 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) cannot be initiated against a corporate debtor (‘CD’) when there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
Brief Facts
M/s Ritco Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd (‘Respondent’) and M/s Akbar Travels of India Pvt Ltd (‘Appellant’) were recognized travel agencies engaged in the business of assisting the travelling and touring public.
The Respondent received orders from a global corporate client for bulk booking of Sold Outside, Ticketed Outside (‘SOTO’) tickets on an urgent basis. Thereafter, the Respondent requested the Appellant to process the SOTO tickets for the client.
The Appellant processed the sale of 87 SOTO tickets, aggregating to approx. Rs. 1.25 crores and raised invoices in the name of the Respondent. The payment for purchasing the aforementioned SOTO tickets was made through credit cards belonging to the corporate client, which the Respondent referred to the Appellant.
The Respondent had on multiple occasions, prior to the Appellant making any payment for the SOTO tickets, assured him to undertake full responsibility for any debit note in case it would be issued against the aforementioned transactions.
Subsequently, the Appellant received chargeback intimation from an airline and 37 Agency Debit Memos (‘ADMs’) were issued citing fraudulent transactions through credit cards.
On communication of the ADMs being received, the Respondent requested the Appellant to dispute the ADMs. The Appellant raised the dispute. However, it was rejected by the airline, and thus, to prevent being blacklisted, the Appellant went ahead and paid the amount due as per the ADMs.
The Appellant subsequently issued a demand notice under s. 8 of the IBC as an operational creditor.
The Respondent raised allegations against the issuance of the demand notice, denying the amount payable, and also lodged police complaints against the ADMs which were issued.
The Appellant filed a petition under s. 9 of IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (‘NCLT Jaipur’), which was rejected on the grounds of a pre-existing dispute between parties. Thus compelling the Appellant to approach the NCLAT.
Held
The NCLAT, while upholding the decision passed by NCLT Jaipur, made the following observations:
The CIRP proceedings under s. 9 IBC cannot be initiated if there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties. However, the nature of the relationship existing between the Appellant and the Respondent was indeed that of an operational creditor and CD, as the Respondent had given multiple undertakings to fulfil the number of ADMs, which was, in fact, an acknowledgement of debt towards the Appellant.
However, relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirussa Software Private Limited[ii], NCLAT held that since there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties, ingredients under s. 9 of IBC are not fulfilled.
Our Analysis
This judgement exemplifies the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and observed that CIRP proceedings can only be initiated as per the provisions of s. 9 of IBC, which requires an applicant to prove the following: (a) the debt is due (b) it has not been paid, and (c) the debt is undisputed. Through this decision, the NCLAT emphasizes that not every dispute ought to be dealt with as per the provisions of the IBC, especially so when the same does not satisfy the aforementioned mandatory requirements provided for under s. 9 of the IBC, and while other civil remedies exist and may be preferred.
End Note
[i] (2024) 162 taxmann.com 646 (NCLAT – Delhi)
[ii] (2018) 1 SCC 353
Authored by Aditya Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.