Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1829 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyService of notice - Sections 8 and 9 of I & B Code - Rules 4,5 and 6 of the Rules - Territorial Jurisdiction - Default for the payment committed by the petitioner / Corporate Debtor - whether operational creditor has admittedly not sent notice to the registered office, but the Tribunal below, without considering the said fact, admitted the application by the order impugned and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the records filed by the operational creditor, it is seen, that the registered office of the corporate debtor is at Nagercoil, whereas, notices were served at the office at Chennai. When the corresponding rules to Sections 8 and 9 of Code clearly specify that the application can be filed after expiry of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under sub-section (1) of Section 8, if the operational creditor does not receive any payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority. Also, when Sections 8 and 9 of the Code clearly specify the delivery of demand notice on the unpaid operational debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed, it has to be followed in its true spirit. When it is mandatory to deliver the demand notice prior to filing the application, the same cannot be violated. The Tribunal below has not noticed the non-service of the mandatory notice at the registered office, which is a preliminary requirement for presenting the application for adjudication. Section 8 of the Code clearly mandates that the demand notice shall be delivered in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, and Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules mandate that the notice shall be served at the registered office of the corporate debtor. This is a mandatory requirement and it cannot be violated. Admittedly, the documents clearly show that the notice was served at the branch office, but not at the registered office. In the given situation, this Court can very well interfere with the failure of the Tribunal, in exercising its jurisdiction. It cannot be said that it is a factual dispute. The Tribunal below ought to have exercised its power vigilantly, as, non-exercise of the same in this case has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, on this occasion of failure of justice, this Court has ample power to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the impugned order [2017 (7) TMI 1299 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI] passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
|