NCLT: Mixed Section 10A Invoices Need a Clear Default Case

Published: 1 November 2026 · Source checked: 1 November 2026

The NCLT Mumbai Bench-VI dismissed Alliance Advertising’s insolvency petition against Eduisfun because the creditor combined Section 10A-protected defaults, other invoices and disputed interest without pleading a separate qualifying default. The important qualification: some older invoices existed, but the creditor declined an opportunity to amend Form 5. The Tribunal would not reconstruct its case. (Order, paragraphs 3.10–3.21)

The order at a glance

This is a practitioner case note on that order, rather than a claim that the underlying debt was extinguished or that subsequent appellate treatment has been exhaustively established. The date appears on both the pronouncement sheet and the detailed order. References below use the detailed order’s numbered paragraphs; its printed pagination starts after the opening order sheet. Read the official order.

Why the account balance was not enough

Alliance’s advertising-services relationship with Eduisfun arose from an agreement dated 1 November 2019. The creditor relied on 38 invoices, ledgers, balance confirmations, a credit note and a demand notice. It sought commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC.

The pleaded claim was ₹4,05,25,376 as at 25 April 2026. In its findings, the Tribunal broke that figure into ₹1,24,71,699 in principal and the interest components claimed by the applicant. Those figures were the creditor’s claim—not an adjudicated award. The invoice schedule spanned January to June 2020, and the invoices carried different payment terms. (Paragraph 3.3)

That mixture made an account-level statement inadequate for the maintainability question. An invoice dated before the pandemic cut-off did not, by itself, demonstrate that payment had fallen due and default had occurred before that cut-off. The Bench expressly distinguished an invoice’s date from the date payment became due and the corresponding default occurred.

Section 10A turns on the protected default

The order applied Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including its proviso that applications cannot subsequently be founded on a default occurring during the protected period. The Bench identified the ultimately extended period as 25 March 2020 to 24 March 2021. It also recognised the explanation preserving defaults committed before 25 March 2020. (Paragraphs 3.4–3.9)

The distinction is between when the default arose and when the creditor filed its application. In this case, filing in 2026 did not remove the obstacle attached to a protected-period default. Nor did continued non-payment after the protected period move the original default to a later date.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s Ramesh Kymal decision when explaining that approach. This note reports how the NCLT applied that authority; it does not present a separate analysis of the Supreme Court judgment without its own source review.

The decisive procedural choice: refusing to amend Form 5

The Bench did not overlook the older invoices. Paragraph 3.10 expressly acknowledged that some invoices preceded 25 March 2020. Its concern was that Alliance had not amended Part IV/Form 5 or confined its pleaded default to a separately identified, quantified amount outside Section 10A.

At the 12 August 2026 hearing, the applicant was specifically asked whether it would amend Form 5. Counsel elected to proceed without modifying it, although offering an affidavit identifying invoices falling due within the protected period. The final order treated that choice as material. (Paragraphs 3.2, 3.10–3.11 and 3.17–3.18)

An affidavit identifying problematic invoices was not treated as a substitute for the creditor revising its pleaded case. The Tribunal declined to segregate invoices itself, determine their individual default dates, recalculate the qualifying amount and substitute that result for the debt pleaded in Form 5.

For counsel, the useful distinction is between supporting an existing pleaded default and asking the Bench to create a different one from the documents. The order addresses the latter problem, particularly after the creditor had been given an amendment opportunity and declined it. It should not be expanded into a proposition that every petition involving a mixed invoice history must inevitably fail.

Why later acknowledgments and invoice interest did not cure it

Alliance relied on balance confirmations from 2021, 2022 and 2023. The Bench held that they could not shift the protected defaults into those later years. Its reasoning concerned the Section 10A bar; it should not be converted into a general claim that acknowledgments never matter for limitation or other proceedings. (Paragraphs 3.12–3.13)

The interest component created a separate difficulty. The invoices stipulated interest at 3% per month, but the underlying agreement contained no corresponding clause. The applicant also failed to show that Eduisfun had ever paid delayed-payment interest. In those circumstances, the Bench would not presume that the claimed interest formed an agreed component of the operational debt. (Paragraphs 3.14–3.19)

That is a record-specific conclusion. The order does not establish that an invoice can never be relevant evidence of an interest obligation. The practical issue here was the combination of the agreement’s silence, the missing payment evidence and the creditor’s insistence on proceeding with the substantial interest component embedded in one composite claim.

A filing review drawn from this case

Before relying on a mixed invoice account in a similar matter, counsel can use the order to structure an evidence review:

1. Map each invoice to its payment term and actual default date. Do not use the invoice date as an automatic substitute.
2. Identify the Section 10A component separately. Explain which defaults are excluded from the proposed insolvency case and why.
3. Reconcile the remaining pleaded amount. Show the relationship between the invoice schedule, credits, account balance and the default actually relied upon.
4. Test interest independently of principal. Identify the agreement or other evidence said to support the obligation, rather than relying only on a printed rate.
5. Respond substantively to a pleading defect. If amendment is offered, decide whether the pleading itself must change; do not assume the Tribunal will perform the reconciliation.

This is an analytical checklist derived from the defects identified in paragraphs 3.16–3.20, not a substitute for checking all requirements applicable to a particular filing. The operative order dismissed this petition as not maintainable. It did not admit CIRP or award the claimed sum. (Paragraph 3.21)

Frequently asked questions

Does filing after March 2021 avoid Section 10A?

Not for the defaults the NCLT treated as protected in this case. Paragraph 3.9 explains that continued non-payment after the protected period does not change when the original default arose. The relevant analysis concerns the default, not simply the later filing date.

Did the NCLT say the older invoices were also automatically barred?

No. Paragraph 3.10 recognised invoices preceding 25 March 2020. The problem was the absence of a segregated qualifying default in the pleading and the applicant’s decision not to amend Form 5.

Did the balance confirmations resolve maintainability?

No. The Bench held that the later confirmations could not move Section 10A-protected defaults into 2021, 2022 or 2023. That finding does not decide every possible legal effect of an acknowledgment outside this issue.

Was the claimed ₹4.05 crore an amount awarded by the Tribunal?

No. It was the operational debt pleaded by the applicant. The Section 9 petition was dismissed as not maintainable; the order should not be described as an award, recovery decree or admission of insolvency.

Primary source and research scope

Official NCLT order hosted by IBBI: Alliance Advertising v. Eduisfun, 24 September 2026, particularly paragraphs 3.2–3.21. This case note was checked against the original PDF. It analyses the order as delivered and does not certify the absence of an appeal, stay or later reversal. Readers using it in a live matter should verify subsequent treatment and the law applicable to that matter.