NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that:
(i) A default occurred on the part of the CD. The absence of any pre-established ‘convention’ for charging interest in cases of delayed payments became irrelevant when payments against the invoices were not received at all, and an acknowledged default of the principal amount happened. It is precisely at this juncture that the applicant invoked the clause specifying an 18% interest charge, that was clearly stated on their invoices, which accompanied the supply of goods to the CD before the initiation of the CIRP.
(ii) The interest claim of the applicant is undoubtedly the ‘claim’ within the meaning of section 3(6) and a ‘debt’ owed within the definition of the term u/s 3(11) of IBC.