In Brief
A construction company sought to initiate insolvency proceedings against an energy solutions company for unpaid advance payment towards a supply contract. The Supreme Court held that the company is an "operational creditor" under the Insolvency Code even though it received rather than supplied goods, since operational debt includes any debt arising from contracts involving goods or services. The Court also upheld the company's Memorandum of Association as proof of takeover of the original proprietorship concern. Finally, it rejected the limitation defence, holding that default occurs upon refusal to repay after demand, not when the debt originally became due. The appeal was allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.