Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in view of the absence of proof of service of demand notice, lack of the required affidavit, and the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
Analysis: Admission of an application by an operational creditor under section 9 depends upon compliance with the statutory conditions, including delivery of the demand notice, filing of the prescribed affidavit, and absence of a pre-existing dispute. The record did not show proof of service of the demand notice on the corporate debtor. The operational creditor also did not file the requisite affidavit concerning dispute and compliance. Further, the claim arose out of matters already in dispute before the Tribunal, showing that the dispute existed prior to the notice under section 8. Since the statutory requirements are mandatory, the application could not proceed.
Conclusion: The application under section 9 was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.