Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 796 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHIMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- The fact that Section 8 notice was issued by the Corporate Debtor find mention in the Section 9 application and adopted for initiating Section 9 proceeding. Observation of the Adjudicating Authority that notice under Section 8 was singed and issued by an unidentified person, cannot be approved. If the Adjudicating Authority had any doubt about details of person signing the notice, an opportunity ought to have been given to the Appellant to explain before the Adjudicating Authority and remove defects, if any, including details of authorization of person issuing notice. There is no dispute that the application under Section 9 was filed by the person who was duly authorized by the Board Resolution dated 15.11.2019 - Finding of Adjudicating Authority that there is different signatory in the demand notice and Section 9 application and name of person who signed notice is not clearly mentioned cannot be ground for rejecting application under Section 9. The Adjudicating Authority ought not have rejected application on aforesaid ground. Now the materials have been brought on record to the effect that person who has given the Section 8 notice was Director of the Appellant, it is satisfying that notice was issued by a competent person - the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside - the application before the Adjudicating Authority which may be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties is revived. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|