Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 801 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Notice issued by the advocate/ lawyer on behalf of the appellant treatment as notice under Section 8 of the ‘I & B Code’ - Held that:- Advocate / lawyer or Chartered Account or a Company Secretary or any other person in absence of any authority by the ‘Operational Creditor’, and if such person do not hold any position with or in relation to the ‘Operational Creditor’, cannot issue notice under Section 8 of ‘I & B Code’, which otherwise can be treated as a lawyer’s notice/ pleader’s notice, as distinct from notice under Section 8 of ‘I & B Code. The demand notice/ invoice Demanding Payment under the I& B Code required to be issued in Form-3 or Form - 4. By the said notice, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is to be informed of particulars of ‘Operational Debt’, with a demand of payment, with clear understanding that the ‘Operational Debt’ (in default), as claimed, is to be paid, unconditionally within ten days from the date of receipt of letter failing which the ‘Operational Creditor’ will initiate a Corporate Insolvency Process in respect of ‘Corporate Debtor’, as apparent from last paragraph no. 6 of notice contained in form - 3, and quoted above. Only if such notice in Form - 3 or Form - 4 is served, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ will understand the serious consequences of non-payment of ‘Operational Debt’, otherwise like any normal pleader notice/Advocate notice or like notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. or notice for initiation of proceeding under Section 433 of the Companies Act 1956, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ may decide to contest the suit/case if filed, as distinct Corporate Resolution Process, where such claim otherwise cannot be contested, except where there is an existence of dispute, prior to issuance of notice under Section 8. In the present case, as the notice has been given by an advocate/lawyer and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the lawyer was authorized by the appellant, and as there is nothing on the record to suggest that the said lawyer/ advocate hold any position with or in relation to the appellant company, we hold that the notice issued by the advocate/ lawyer on behalf of the appellant cannot be treated as notice under Section 8 of the ‘I & B Code’. And for the said reason also the petition under Section 9 at the instance of the appellant against the respondent was not maintainable.
|