Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 101 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 8 was not given by the respondent –‘Operational Creditor’ but through Advocate/Lawyers’ Firm - Held that:- There is nothing on record to suggest that the person/Law Firm was authorised by the ‘Operational Creditor’ or the Law firm is holding any position within the office of the ‘Operational Creditor’. Thus we hold that the application under Section 9 preferred by the respondent-‘Operational Creditor’ was not maintainable. The 'I&B Code' is a complete Code by itself. The provision of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 cannot override the specific provision of a statute which requires that a particular act should be done by a person in the manner as prescribed thereunder. Therefore, we hold that a 'Power of Attorney Holder' is not competent to file an application on behalf of a 'Financial Creditor' or 'Operational Creditor' or 'Corporate Applicant'.” . See Palogix Infrastructure Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Limited [2017 (10) TMI 913 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] - Application dismissed.
|