TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the members of the Board in their meeting held on 29th June, 2017, Ms. Meetu Bajaj, Legal Counsel and Company Secretary of the Company be and is hereby authorized to execute power of attorney and for issue of letter(s) of authority, Vakalatnama and any other documents thereby delegating, empowering and authorizing any employee of the company or any other person to do any or all of the acts, deeds and exercise powers as are envisaged in the above resolution in the matter of filing Petition in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as well as National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at respective bench. RESOLVED FURTHER THAT any Director or Legal Counsel Company Secretary of the Company be and are hereby severally authorized to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Board Resolution dated 5.10.2017. This authorizes Ms. Meetu Bajaj, Legal Counsel and Company Secretary to issue power of attorney and for issue of Letter of Authority / Vakalatnama or any other document thereby delegating, empowering and authorizing any employee of the company or any other person to do any or all of the act, deeds and exercise powers as are envisaged in the above Resolution in the matter of filing Petition in NCLT as well as in NCLAT at respective Bench. 5. In the above Board Resolution it has not mentioned that the Board of the Company has authorized Ms. Meetu Bajaj for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. In the case of Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ICICI BANK, the Hon ble NCLAT has specifically p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prior authorisation for initiation of Petition was filed by Power of Attorney holder by authorized representative Ms. Meetu Bajaj, who was authorized by the Board for filing any proceedings before NCLAT and later on Ms. Meetu Bajaj, has been confirmed with the Power for initiation of CIRP with retrospective effect by Board Resolution dated 29.01.2019. 9. Ld. Counsel has relied on the case law Hon ble Supreme Court SCC 96 Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v/s. Sunil, s/o Pundikarao Pathak wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently rectified by ratifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
