Introduction

The case of SSMP Industries Ltd. vs. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. presents a crucial legal question at the intersection of contract law and insolvency proceedings in India. This dispute, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, examines the implications of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, particularly in the context of ongoing civil claims and counterclaims during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

The conflict arose from a commercial transaction in which SSMP Industries Ltd. sought to recover a substantial amount from Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. for the supply of Totapari Mango pulp. While the plaintiff claimed outstanding dues, the defendant countered with a demand of its own, arguing for an entitlement to recover damages. However, the insolvency of SSMP Industries Ltd. introduced complexities, raising the issue of whether Perkan Food Processors’ counterclaim could proceed despite the statutory moratorium imposed under IBC.

By addressing the interplay between moratorium provisions and counterclaims, the court’s decision underscores the principles of procedural fairness and the necessity of a comprehensive adjudication process. This ruling contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on insolvency law, reinforcing judicial scrutiny in balancing creditor rights and statutory compliance.

FACTS

The case of SSMP Industries Ltd. vs. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. arises from a commercial dispute concerning the supply of Totapari Mango pulp. The plaintiff, SSMP Industries Ltd., placed an order with the defendant, Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., for the procurement of mango pulp. According to the plaintiff, an agreement was executed, deliveries were made, and payments were exchanged. However, disputes later emerged regarding alleged excess payments, damages, and outstanding balances.

SSMP Industries Ltd. filed a suit seeking the recovery of ₹1,61,47,336.44 from Perkan Food Processors, claiming that the defendant was liable for various breaches. Conversely, Perkan Food Processors refuted these claims and filed a counterclaim, asserting that it was, in fact, owed ₹59,51,548 due to breaches committed by SSMP Industries Ltd. The defendant maintained that it had no outstanding dues and instead was entitled to recover damages from the plaintiff.

During the course of the litigation, SSMP Industries Ltd. entered insolvency proceedings, and a Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. This development raised a significant legal question regarding the applicability of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The moratorium prohibits the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution. The defendant’s counterclaim, being a legal proceeding against SSMP Industries Ltd., came under scrutiny in light of this statutory provision.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the counterclaim was not an independent legal proceeding but rather a set-off claim inherently linked to the primary suit. Since the claim and counterclaim were based on the same commercial transaction, they contended that both should be adjudicated together. Additionally, they argued that forcing the defendant to approach the RP for its claim would lead to procedural unfairness and potential inconsistencies in adjudication.

The defendant maintained that it had a legitimate counterclaim, which should not be dismissed merely due to the plaintiff’s insolvency. Citing precedents from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Delhi High Court, the defendant asserted that adjudicating the counterclaim alongside the main suit was necessary for a fair resolution.

Given the intertwined nature of the claims and the potential implications of the insolvency moratorium, the court was required to determine whether the counterclaim could proceed despite the plaintiff’s insolvency. The decision in this case would impact how counterclaims are treated in insolvency proceedings, particularly in scenarios where the corporate debtor itself has initiated legal action.

ISSUES

1. Whether the counterclaim filed by Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. against SSMP Industries Ltd. is barred under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, or whether it can proceed alongside the plaintiff’s primary suit.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s insolvency status affects the adjudication of claims and counterclaims arising from the same commercial transaction and whether referring the defendant’s claim to the Resolution Professional ensures procedural fairness.
3. Whether the continuation of the counterclaim would adversely impact the corporate debtor’s assets or whether it is essential for a comprehensive resolution of the dispute between the parties.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Arguments by the petitioners

• The petitioner contends that the counterclaim filed by Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. is barred under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Since the moratorium restricts the continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor, allowing the counterclaim would contravene the statutory framework.
• SSMP Industries argues that the counterclaim is not an independent action but a defensive mechanism linked to the primary suit. The petitioner asserts that the defendant should seek redress through the insolvency process rather than litigation, as the IBC provides a structured mechanism for adjudicating claims against an insolvent entity.
• The petitioner argues that the proper forum for adjudicating claims against an insolvent company is the NCLT under the IBC framework. Since Perkan Food Processors’ claim concerns a monetary dispute, it should be resolved within the insolvency proceedings rather than through the civil courts.
• The petitioner submits that permitting the counterclaim to proceed would adversely impact the corporate debtor’s assets and disrupt the insolvency resolution process. The purpose of the IBC moratorium is to prevent the depletion of resources, and any adjudication outside the IBC framework would be contrary to this objective.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondent argues that its counterclaim is integral to the dispute and should be adjudicated alongside the petitioner’s suit. Since SSMP Industries initiated the proceedings, Perkan Food Processors should have the right to defend itself and seek damages arising from the same transaction.
• The respondent asserts that Section 14 is intended to prevent fresh claims against the corporate debtor but does not bar a counterclaim that is directly linked to the original suit. The principle of procedural fairness requires that both the suit and counterclaim be heard together.
• Perkan Food Processors argues that its counterclaim functions as a set-off rather than a separate legal action. Since set-offs are generally permissible in insolvency proceedings, the respondent contends that its claim should not be dismissed outright.
• The respondent highlights the risk of conflicting decisions if the suit and counterclaim are adjudicated separately. If the court allows SSMP Industries’ claim but directs the respondent to seek relief before the RP, it could lead to inconsistent outcomes and procedural inefficiencies.

DECISION

In SSMP Industries Ltd. vs. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court examined the interplay between insolvency proceedings and pending civil claims, particularly the applicability of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, to counterclaims.

The Court held that the counterclaim filed by Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. was not an independent proceeding but was intrinsically linked to the primary suit initiated by SSMP Industries Ltd. It noted that staying the counterclaim while allowing the plaintiff’s suit to proceed would result in procedural unfairness and an incomplete adjudication of the dispute.

Relying on precedents from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and previous High Court rulings, the Court determined that a counterclaim should not be automatically barred by the IBC moratorium, especially when it is necessary for a comprehensive resolution of claims. It was emphasized that the continuation of the counterclaim would not immediately diminish or adversely impact the corporate debtor’s assets, a key consideration under Section 14.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that both the suit and the counterclaim would proceed together. It directed the matter to trial, ensuring that all claims and defenses were adjudicated in a fair and just manner. This decision reaffirmed the principle that insolvency laws should not be used to create an imbalance in ongoing litigation, reinforcing procedural fairness in commercial disputes.

CONCLUSION 

The decision in SSMP Industries Ltd. vs. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. underscores the nuanced application of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, particularly in balancing the moratorium provisions under Section 14 with the principles of procedural fairness. The Court’s approach reflects the necessity of ensuring comprehensive adjudication while safeguarding the corporate debtor’s insolvency proceedings.

A key aspect of the ruling is its recognition that counterclaims cannot be automatically barred under the moratorium when intrinsically linked to a plaintiff’s suit. By allowing both the suit and counterclaim to proceed together, the Court reaffirmed the need for a holistic resolution of disputes rather than creating procedural roadblocks that could lead to inconsistent rulings. This aligns with previous judgments emphasizing that the IBC should not be interpreted rigidly if doing so would undermine fairness in commercial litigation.

The Court’s reasoning also highlights the practical limitations of insolvency proceedings in addressing complex contractual disputes. While the Resolution Professional (RP) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) play crucial roles in the insolvency process, they are not substitutes for judicial determination in cases requiring detailed fact-finding and evidentiary scrutiny.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that insolvency laws are applied equitably. It serves as a reminder that while the IBC seeks to protect corporate debtors, it must not be used as a shield against legitimate claims that require due legal adjudication.