NCLT Delhi Refuses Perjury Action Against Operational Creditor for Alleged Non-Disclosure of Part-Payments in IBC Proceedings
Case Overview
Tollman International Private Limited Vs Capstech Network Private Limited (NCLT Delhi)
The National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench, recently adjudicated upon an interlocutory application bearing IA No. 206/ND/2025 arising in C.P. (IB) No. 2/ND/2024. The application was preferred by the corporate debtor under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, read alongside Sections 227 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The relief sought was a preliminary inquiry into alleged perjury committed by the respondent-operational creditor, along with a direction to forward a complaint to the competent Magistrate for cognizance of the alleged offence.
The Tribunal, after carefully examining the rival contentions and the legal framework governing invocation of perjury jurisdiction, dismissed the application on both substantive and maintainability grounds.
Background Facts and Contractual Dispute
The dispute arose from a commercial arrangement between the parties under which the respondent-operational creditor had agreed to supply computers, laptops, and ancillary components to the applicant-corporate debtor against invoices raised from time to time. The applicant maintained that it had consistently honoured its payment obligations under the said contract.
On 18.08.2023, the respondent issued a formal demand notice against the applicant for recovery of a sum of ₹1,04,74,992/-. Following this notice, both parties engaged in a series of discussions to ascertain and reconcile the actual outstanding dues. In the course of these deliberations, the applicant made a part-payment of ₹10,00,000/-, which the respondent duly received and acknowledged.
Despite the receipt of this payment, the respondent proceeded to file an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bearing C.P. (IB) No. 2/ND/2024 on 04.10.2023, claiming initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the applicant on account of an alleged default of ₹1,04,74,992.89/-, inclusive of interest. The petition was initially filed on 04.10.2023 and was subsequently re-filed and registered after rectification of defects on 18.12.2023.
The applicant further submitted that an additional part-payment of ₹10,00,000/- was made on 11.10.2023, which was also duly received and acknowledged by the respondent. Thus, the aggregate part-payments tendered by the applicant amounted to ₹20,00,000/-. However, neither of these payments found mention in the original petition, the re-filed version, the additional submissions, the brief notes, nor during the course of oral arguments advanced across multiple hearing dates.
Applicant's Allegations: Perjury Through Suppression of Material Facts
Nature of the Alleged False Statements
The applicant's core grievance was that the respondent had deliberately suppressed the two part-payments aggregating ₹20,00,000/- across several pleadings and submissions filed before the Tribunal. The specific instances highlighted by the applicant as constituting false statements were as follows: