Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1971 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is to be clarified that to initiate proceeding under Section 9 of the Code, notice under Section 8 is mandatory. After sending the valid notice under Section 8, if the Corporate Debtor fails to make the payment within 10 days, then only the person gets right to file petition under Section 9 of the IB Code, 2016. Admittedly, on the date of issuance of Section 8 notice under IB Code, Petitioner was not authorized for initiation of CIRP. By the implication of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner states that Ms. Meetu Bajaj has got authority for initiation of CIRP retrospectively. Since the proceedings/notice under Section 8 was issued without authority, even if we consider that Ms. Meetu Bajaj has been authorized for initiation of CIRP retrospectively, then demand notice under Section 8 is necessary and if the Corporate Debtor fails to make payment then only Petition under section 9 can be filed. In this case, the Petitioner was not authorized to initiate CIRP on the date of issuance of notice and therefore, by ratification of Board Resolution, Notice under Section 8 of the IB Code cannot be validated. Since Notice under Section 8 of IB Code is not valid, Petition under section 9 is not maintainable therefore, the petition under section 9 filed under I&B Code, 2016 is dismissed.
|