Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench has held that winding-up and insolvency cases transferred from High Courts continue to be governed by the monetary threshold applicable on the date when the petition was originally filed, and not by the enhanced thresholds introduced subsequently under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada rejected an objection raised by Lapp India Private Limited to the maintainability of a transferred insolvency petition filed by Schenker India Private Limited.

Also Read: Corporate Debtor Estopped From Reclaiming Property After Receiving Full Consideration Under Unregistered Slump Sale: NCLT Hyderabad

The Tribunal observed, “It is incorrect to contend that the petition has to be treated as a fresh petition and the monetary limits as on today need to be applied to determine the maintainability of the petition. Since the Petition was filed in 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court and the monetary threshold at the time of introduction of the IBC, 2016, was only one lakh, the petition on which certain proceedings had already commenced in the Hon'ble High Court and subsequently transferred to NCLT in 2024, the threshold as in 2016 is applicable, and consequently, we hold that the petition under consideration now is maintainable.”

The dispute traces back to 2014, when Schenker India, a logistics and warehousing services provider and an Indian subsidiary of the DB Schenker group, approached the Karnataka High Court seeking winding up of Lapp India for non-payment of dues. The claim arose out of warehousing and logistics services provided during 2012–13, with outstanding invoices amounting to approximately ₹15.74 lakh.

The proceedings before the High Court progressed over several years and included multiple hearings as well as referral to mediation. Following the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the issuance of notifications providing for transfer of pending winding-up proceedings, the matter was eventually transferred to the NCLT Bengaluru in 2024.

After transfer, Lapp India objected to the maintainability of the petition. It contended that since the matter had been assigned a transferred petition number by the NCLT in 2024, it ought to be treated as a fresh insolvency petition. Relying on the March 2020 notification which enhanced the minimum default threshold under the IBC to ₹1 crore, Lapp argued that the Tribunal lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the alleged default was far below the prevailing threshold.

Schenker India opposed the objection, asserting that the proceedings were a continuation of its 2014 winding-up petition and not a fresh insolvency application. It was argued that the applicable threshold was the one in force at the time of the IBC’s introduction in 2016, which was ₹1 lakh, and that subsequent enhancement of the threshold could not be applied retrospectively to defeat pending proceedings that had already progressed substantially.

Accepting Schenker India’s submissions, the Tribunal noted that the petition had been filed well before the enactment of the IBC and long before the default threshold was raised to ₹1 crore. It emphasised that the case had already seen substantive proceedings before the High Court, including mediation, and could not be treated as a fresh filing merely because it was transferred to the NCLT pursuant to statutory notifications.

Also Read: NCLT Mumbai Sanctions Demerger Scheme Of Poonawalla Finance And Group Companies, Clears Internal Business Reorganisation

The Bench held that applying the enhanced threshold to such transferred matters would amount to retrospectively extinguishing vested rights and would defeat the very purpose of the transfer mechanism under the Code. It therefore concluded that the petition remained maintainable on the basis of the threshold applicable when the IBC came into force. Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed Lapp India’s application challenging the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The main insolvency petition has now been directed to be listed for further hearing on February 16, 2026. 

Appearance

For Petitioner: Advocate Pavan Srinivas

For Respondent: Advocates Nikhil Hegde and Jaya Mishra

Cause Title: Lapp India Private Limited v. Schenker India Private Limited

Case Number: IA (IBC) 635 /2025 in TP (IBC) 05/ 2024 in CP 21/2014

Coram: Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada