Operational debt claims for contractual compensation must be crystallized and adjudicated before insolvency petitions are maintainable.

Contractual claims for compensation or penalty under Clause 10 are not treated as crystallized operational debt where entitlement and quantum remain disputed; such claims require adjudication by a competent forum before becoming actionable in insolvency proceedings. The admissibility threshold for a Section 9 insolvency petition is limited to operational debts that are clear, due and undisputed or already adjudicated; where substantive determination of liability or quantum is necessary, the Section 9 application is not maintainable. Consequentially, rejection of a Section 9 petition on this basis is legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Section 9 application seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings for claimed contractual compensation/penalty.

Analysis: Clause 10 of the contract provides entitlement to compensation and penalty upon failure of performance. The claim for compensation/penalty is not a crystallized, undisputed monetary operational debt but requires adjudication to determine entitlement and quantum. A Section 9 application admits only crystallized operational debts that do not require substantive adjudication by a competent court or authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Section 9 application is upheld; the claim for contractual compensation/penalty is not a properly crystallized operational debt for initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 and requires adjudication by a competent forum. The decision is therefore against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.

---