NCLT Cuttack Admits Insolvency Plea Against Bhilai Jaypee Cement For ₹45 Crore Default
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench comprising Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member) and Banwari Lal Meena (Technical Member) has ordered the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited, a subsidiary of the debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Limited, for a default amounting to Rs. 45.40 crore. The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by Sidhgiri Holdings Private Limited as the operational creditor.
Background
Sidhgiri Holdings Private Limited supplied coal to Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited for use in its cement plant operations. The transactions arose from three purchase orders issued by the corporate debtor on 1 November 2021, 15 November 2021, and 2 February 2022 for the supply of 2000 metric tonnes of coal each, totaling 6000 MT. The operational creditor raised multiple invoices between 15 September 2021 and 18 May 2022, which were accepted by the corporate debtor without protest.
According to the operational creditor, the corporate debtor acknowledged an outstanding liability of Rs. 31.08 crore as of 31 March 2023 through an email dated 25 September 2023, and made a partial payment of Rs. 1 crore on 27 December 2023. Despite the acknowledgment, no further payment was made, resulting in a total outstanding amount of Rs. 45,40,22,840.95, inclusive of interest at 24% per annum. A demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC was issued on 22 June 2024, but the corporate debtor failed to respond.
Corporate Debtor’s Defence
The corporate debtor opposed the petition, alleging that it was filed with a recovery intent and not for insolvency resolution. It contended that the application was defective and incomplete, claiming non-compliance with the requirements under Sections 9(3)(c) and 9(3)(d) of the IBC, including the absence of a certificate from financial institutions confirming non-payment, and lack of records from the information utility. It further argued that the bank statements, GSTR forms, and email communications produced by the operational creditor were inadmissible as they were not accompanied by a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), corresponding to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The debtor also challenged the validity of affidavits verifying the application due to a mismatch between the deponent’s address and the place of notarization, claiming such defects rendered the application incomplete.
Tribunal’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that no dispute was raised by the corporate debtor regarding the receipt of coal, the authenticity of invoices, or the existence and quantum of the debt. The Bench noted that “the respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the invoices brought on record by the applicant nor disputed the receipt of such invoices.” The debtor’s own acknowledgment and partial payment, coupled with the absence of any challenge to limitation, confirmed the existence of an operational debt and default. The NCLT also dealt with the objection concerning the absence of certificates under Section 63 of the BSA. Referring to the NCLAT’s ruling in Pijush Banerjee v. IL & FS Financial Services Limited, the Bench held that the absence of such certificates does not invalidate an IBC application, since electronic records are not the primary evidence establishing debt in such cases.
On the issue of non-compliance with Sections 9(3)(c) and 9(3)(d) of the Code, the Bench relied on Vijay Kumar Singhania v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2320) to hold that the filing of a bank certificate and information utility record is directory and not mandatory, as both provisions contain the phrase “if available.” Therefore, such omissions did not render the application defective. Addressing the alleged defect in the affidavit, the Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement mandating that an affidavit must be notarized at the deponent’s place of residence. Accordingly, the objection was rejected.
Order and Outcome
After considering the materials on record, the Bench found that all the essential conditions under Section 9 of the IBC had been satisfied. It held that “there exists an outstanding operational debt, a default, and accordingly the present application under Section 9 of the Code read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2016, for initiating CIRP of Bhilai Jaypee Cement is allowed, and the corporate debtor is admitted.” Consequently, the NCLT admitted the application and declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, prohibiting all proceedings, transfers, and recoveries against the corporate debtor. Mr. Ashutosh Khemani (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N01177/2021-2022/13902) was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to carry out the functions under the Code.
The Tribunal directed the IRP to make a public announcement inviting claims, manage the corporate debtor as a going concern, and file periodical progress reports before the Adjudicating Authority. The commencement of CIRP was made effective from 15 October 2025, the date of the order.
Cause Title: Siddhgiri Holdings Private Limited v. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited
Case No: CP(IB) No. 51/CB/2024
Coram: Deep Chandra Joshi (Member-Judicial) and Banwari Lal Meena Banwari Lal Meena (Member-Technical)
