Industry Odisha Bureau, Oct 02: Uniton Infra sought insolvency against Shapoorji Pallonji over an alleged ₹4.31 crore default. One invoice fell within the Covid-era filing ban, the NCLT said. The rest missed the ₹1 crore threshold, sinking the petition.
On paper, Uniton Infra’s claim looked large enough to start insolvency proceedings. It alleged that Shapoorji Pallonji & Co had defaulted on ₹4.31 crore. That is more than four times the ₹1 crore threshold. Yet the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected the insolvency petition. The reason lies not in the size of the claim, but in its parts.
Two Invoices, Two Fates
Uniton Infra’s claim rested on two invoices. That detail decided the case. One invoice related to a period covered by a Covid-era ban on bankruptcy filings. The government had imposed that ban to ease pandemic-related economic distress. As a result, that invoice could not support the insolvency petition. This does not mean the underlying debt was wiped out. It only means the amount could not be used to trigger insolvency.
The ₹1 Crore Test
With that invoice set aside, only the second one remained. The NCLT said this remaining claim fell below ₹1 crore. That figure is the minimum default needed to start insolvency proceedings. Once the eligible amount slipped under the bar, the petition could not proceed. In effect, the tribunal measured only what was legally usable. The headline figure of ₹4.31 crore therefore mattered less than its composition.
Roads at the Root
The dispute arose from road work in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. Uniton Infra said it resurfaced damaged cement concrete roads there. It alleged Shapoorji Pallonji did not pay for that work. Uniton approached the tribunal as an operational creditor. These are typically creditors owed for goods or services, rather than lenders. Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code lets such creditors seek insolvency proceedings. The petition sought to start that process against Shapoorji Pallonji.
Rival Accounts of the Money
The two companies gave sharply different accounts. Uniton Infra argued Shapoorji Pallonji had received payments from a state department. It named the public health and municipal engineering department. Under the project terms, Uniton said, those receipts required payments to be released.
Shapoorji Pallonji contested the petition. It argued the alleged outstanding amount was not due and payable. It also said relevant payments from the municipal corporation had not been received. The tribunal’s stated reasons turned on eligibility, not on these rival accounts.
Claim Versus Trigger
This distinction matters. A payment claim and an insolvency trigger are not the same thing. Insolvency proceedings are a serious step against a corporate debtor. The law therefore sets conditions on which debts can start them. Timing can disqualify part of a claim, as the Covid-era invoice showed. Size alone is not enough.
Thresholds Beyond Headlines
Uniton Infra’s alleged ₹4.31 crore default did not translate into a qualifying trigger. The case shows creditors cannot lean on aggregated invoices alone. Each component must clear the law’s timing and threshold tests. For construction contractors chasing dues, that is a practical lesson. The underlying payment dispute, meanwhile, remains contested between the two companies.
