Published: · Source checked:
An admitted return of goods, earlier WhatsApp complaints and a timely demand-notice reply established a plausible pre-existing dispute in Rajesh Harikishan Khandelwal v. Jay Ambe Industries. On 14 October 2026, the NCLAT set aside Section 9 admission. It did not decide that the goods were defective or that nothing was owed. Judgment, paragraphs 78–85.
Order and procedural setting
| Item | Verified detail |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi |
| Bench | Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Naresh Salecha |
| Appeal | Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1700 of 2026 |
| Order date | |
| Appellant | Rajesh Harikishan Khandelwal, suspended management of MIM Petro World Private Limited |
| Challenged order | NCLT Ahmedabad, 27 August 2026, CP (IB) No. 252 of 2023 |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed; admission order set aside; underlying commercial merits reserved |
The operational creditor claimed ₹1,96,00,535, comprising principal of ₹1,77,32,898 and interest of ₹18,67,637. The claimed invoices fell between 13 and 18 December 2022. The tribunal recorded a demand notice dated 17 August 2023 and a timely reply dated 29 August 2023. Those are pleaded debt figures, not an appellate award. Paragraphs 71–73 and 80.
The dispute had already travelled through an earlier dismissal, appeal and remand. The NCLAT explained that its 6 April 2026 remand had required fresh adjudication, rather than deciding the commercial dispute for either side. The subsequent admission therefore had to be tested against the complete record and the proper Section 9 inquiry. Paragraphs 73 and 77.
The question was whether a real dispute existed before the notice
Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) distinguish an operational-creditor insolvency application from a commercial trial. In this judgment, the NCLAT applied the test of a plausible contention needing investigation, rather than requiring the debtor to prove its entire defence. A bare denial remained insufficient. The dispute had to be genuine and predate receipt of the demand notice. Paragraphs 74–76.
This article focuses on how the evidence fitted that test. It does not propose that every quality complaint, screenshot or returned consignment defeats insolvency admission.
Three parts of the record supported the dispute
The creditor accepted that goods had been returned
The creditor accepted that goods under an invoice dated 17 December 2022 were returned on 24 December 2022, months before the demand notice. It argued that this invoice was excluded from the debt claimed. The tribunal treated that as a response concerning the amount, rather than an answer to whether a quality dispute existed during the same supply period. The admission order had not made an invoice-wise comparison establishing an unaffected claim above the threshold. Paragraphs 78 and 81.
This distinction matters. A returned invoice outside the final demand is not automatically irrelevant; equally, its existence does not automatically establish that every other invoice is disputed. The tribunal connected the return to the contemporaneous complaints and the particular claimed supplies.
Earlier WhatsApp complaints required contextual consideration
The chats ran from November–December 2022 and included photographs, videos and a laboratory report. The creditor challenged their selectivity, connection to invoices, recipient's authority and lack of a Section 65B certificate. The tribunal nevertheless found that the pre-notice messages had not been specifically shown never to have been sent or to have been altered. When asked for the complete chat, the creditor said it was unavailable following a change of phone. Paragraph 79.
The ruling should not be turned into a general exemption from electronic-evidence requirements. It concerned whether the record disclosed a plausible dispute at the Section 9 admission stage. Authenticity, admissibility and ultimate evidentiary weight in another proceeding were not comprehensively adjudicated.
The demand-notice reply matched the older events
The reply of 29 August 2023 raised quality complaints consistent with the chats and the December return. The tribunal also noted that no further supply followed the return and complaints. Together, these facts supplied a plausible explanation for withholding payment and showed a dispute rooted in events predating the notice. Paragraphs 80–81.
A reply drafted only after a statutory demand does not, by its date alone, establish when a dispute began. Here the important connection was between that reply and the earlier business record.
What the tribunal refused to decide as if conducting a trial
The NCLAT found that the admission reasoning demanded too much: final proof that the goods were defective, that the laboratory report was genuine, that the intermediary had authority and that customer claims were valid. Those matters required trial rather than resolution through the limited admission inquiry. Paragraphs 82–84.
The bill-to-ship arrangement was also relevant. The fact that end-customers used and complained about the goods did not automatically make the dispute unrelated to the supplier. Whether consequential losses could ultimately be recovered remained separate. Conversely, the NCLAT expressly placed no reliance on either customer debit note discussed in paragraph 82; the core conclusion rested on the return, chats and reply. The article therefore does not present those debit notes as decisive proof.
A practical evidence map for counsel
The following is Veritect's analysis of the verified reasoning, rather than an additional tribunal direction:
| Question to test | Record that helped here | Limit to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Did the complaint predate the notice? | Dated chats and an admitted December return | A later assertion alone does not establish an earlier dispute |
| Does it concern the supplies claimed? | Same period, quality complaints and bill-to-ship context | Compare invoices; do not assume all debts are affected |
| Is it more than a bare denial? | Mutually consistent return, communications and reply | The Section 9 inquiry still excludes manufactured defences |
| What remains for another forum? | Quality, damages and amount due | No merits victory or debt extinguishment follows from this order |
Relief and the scope of this dated analysis
The NCLAT allowed the appeal, set aside the admission order, closed pending interlocutory applications and made no costs order. It expressly reserved whether the goods were defective, whether losses were suffered and what amount was due for appropriate proceedings elsewhere. Paragraph 85.
This note analyses the 14 October 2026 order as delivered, checked on 1 November 2026. A targeted official Supreme Court search did not establish later treatment; it was not an exhaustive appeal or stay search. This article makes no assertion that no subsequent proceeding exists.
Questions practitioners may ask
Does this judgment establish that WhatsApp screenshots are always sufficient?
No. The tribunal evaluated a combined record at the Section 9 stage. The admitted return and timely reply supported the older communications; paragraph 79 is not a general ruling on admissibility in every forum.
Did the NCLAT find that Jay Ambe supplied defective goods?
No. It found a plausible pre-existing dispute requiring investigation. Paragraph 85 expressly leaves product quality, losses and the debt amount undecided.
Was the returned invoice itself part of the claim?
The creditor said it was excluded. The tribunal explained that exclusion did not remove its relevance to the existence and timing of the quality dispute, while an invoice-wise unaffected claim had not been established in the admission reasoning.
Official source and related reading
- NCLAT judgment: Khandelwal v. Jay Ambe, 14 October 2026, Appeal 1700/2026, especially paragraphs 71–85.
- NCLAT on proving the character of financial debt from share-purchase money addresses a separate Section 7 question.
- NCLT on mixed Section 10A defaults and defective Form 5 addresses a different obstacle to a Section 9 application.