Last Updated:
A two-member NCLT bench also appointed an interim resolution professional (IRP), suspending Bhilai Jaypee Cement’s board and placing it under a moratorium.
Sidhgiri Holdings moved NCLT, filing a petition against Bhilai Jaypee Cement under Section 9 of the IBC.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has ordered the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Bhilai Jaypee Cement, a subsidiary of debt-laden Jaiprakash Associates Limited, over a default of Rs 45 crore. The Cuttack bench of the NCLT issued the direction after admitting a plea by the company’s operational creditor, Sidhgiri Holdings Pvt Ltd, to which Bhilai Jaypee Cement owed Rs 45 crore for coal supplies.
A two-member NCLT bench also appointed an interim resolution professional (IRP), suspending the company’s board and placing it under a moratorium, protecting its assets from sale, civil suits, or other encumbrances, as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The bench, comprising Members Deep Chandra Joshi and Banwari Lal Meena, said, “We are inclined to hold that there exists an outstanding operational debt, a default and accordingly the present Application… under Section 9 of the Code read with Rule 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP of Bhilai Jaypee Cement is allowed and the corporate debtor is admitted.”
Bhilai Jaypee Cement had regularly purchased coal from Sidhgiri Holdings. The dispute arose from three purchase orders of 2,000 MT each, totaling 6,000 MT, between September 2021 and June 2022. Payments for each order were due 15 days after delivery. Despite multiple invoices raised by the supplier, the cement maker made only partial payments. On June 22, 2024, Sidhgiri Holdings sent a statutory demand notice under IBC for Rs 45.40 crore, comprising Rs 30.08 crore principal and Rs 15.32 crore interest at 24%, which remained unpaid. After receiving no response, Sidhgiri Holdings approached the NCLT under Section 9 of IBC.
Bhilai Jaypee Cement contested the plea, arguing that it was solvent and that the petition was intended merely for recovery. It also claimed that no certificate from financial institutions confirming non-payment, or other supporting documents such as invoices, e-way bills, GSTR forms, ledger books, and bank statements, were provided.
However, NCLT noted that the cement maker “has not disputed the receipt of coal supplies and the genuineness of the invoices.” The bench added, “It is noted that no dispute whatsoever has been raised by the respondent in regard to the receipt of coal supplied by the applicant. The respondent has also neither disputed the genuineness of invoices brought on record by the applicant nor disputed the receipt of such invoices by it in its reply or oral submissions. The respondent has also neither disputed the existence of the debt nor the quantum of debt which is stated in Part-IV of the application.”
Furthermore, GST invoices raised by Sidhgiri Holdings in favour of Bhilai Jaypee Cement were also undisputed. The bench concluded, “The existence of debt is clearly established by the copies of the invoices raised by the applicant, and the acceptance of the existence of debt on the part of the respondent in its reply makes the contention of the respondent about Section 63 of BSA, 2023, untenable.”
Bhilai Jaypee Cement’s parent company, Jaiprakash Associates Limited, is already undergoing CIRP, in which Vedanta has emerged as the winning bidder with Rs 17,000 crore, surpassing Adani Group’s offer.
(With Inputs from PTI)
A team of writers and reporters decodes vast terms of personal finance and making money matters simpler for you. From latest initial public offerings (IPOs) in the market to best investment options, we cover al…Read More
A team of writers and reporters decodes vast terms of personal finance and making money matters simpler for you. From latest initial public offerings (IPOs) in the market to best investment options, we cover al… Read More
October 22, 2025, 13:51 IST
Read More
