Operational debt not proved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so the Section 9 application failed.

A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application was not maintainable because the purchase orders on record were issued to a different entity, not the alleged corporate debtor. The materials also failed to show that goods were supplied or services were rendered to the corporate debtor, so the applicant did not establish an operational debt or qualify as an operational creditor under Sections 5(20) and 5(21). On that basis, the Section 9 proceeding could not be sustained, and the corporate insolvency resolution process was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable against the corporate debtor, and whether the operational creditor had established an operational debt owed by it.

Analysis: The purchase orders on record showed that they were issued to a different entity and not to the alleged corporate debtor. The materials also did not establish that goods were supplied or services rendered to the corporate debtor so as to bring the applicant within the definition of operational creditor in the context of Sections 5(20) and 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In these circumstances, the application under Section 9 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed, with the corporate insolvency resolution process set aside.

---