Specific authorisation is required for insolvency filings; a general power of attorney cannot replace it, while rectification time runs from notice.

An application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be filed by a properly authorised representative; a mere power of attorney holder without specific authority to initiate insolvency proceedings is not competent to act. The Code is a complete regime for insolvency filings, so the general Power of Attorney Act cannot override its filing requirements, though a duly empowered officer or representative may file on the creditor's behalf. The defect in authorisation was also capable of being cured within the seven-day rectification period counted from receipt of notice, including Tribunal holidays, and the limitation objection failed. The insolvency application was therefore admitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be filed by a mere power of attorney holder without specific authorization for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process; (ii) whether the defect in authorization could be cured within the statutory period after notice to rectify defects.

Issue (i): Whether an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be filed by a mere power of attorney holder without specific authorization for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The insolvency framework requires the financial creditor to act through an authorized representative, and the prescribed form contemplates disclosure of the person authorised to submit the application with the relevant authorisation enclosed. The Code is a complete and exhaustive code for insolvency matters, so the Power of Attorney Act cannot override the specific manner of filing required under the insolvency regime. A general power of attorney holder, as distinct from an authorised officer or representative of the creditor, is therefore not competent to file the application. At the same time, where a bank or company has authorised an officer by board resolution or equivalent mandate, such officer may act for it in insolvency proceedings.

Conclusion: A mere power of attorney holder without specific authorization cannot file the section 7 application, but a duly authorised person can; this aspect is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the defect in authorization could be cured within the statutory period after notice to rectify defects.

Analysis: The proviso to section 7(5) requires notice to rectify defects within seven days of receipt of such notice. The period is computed from receipt of notice, not from the date of the order, and the plea of non-compliance failed in the absence of specific pleadings as to the date of service. The excluded period also includes Tribunal holidays for computing the rectification time.

Conclusion: The defect was capable of being cured in time and the objection on limitation for rectification was rejected; this aspect is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed admission of the insolvency application and declined to interfere with the impugned orders, resulting in dismissal of all appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute is a complete code and prescribes filing through an authorised representative or in a specified form, a general power of attorney cannot substitute the required specific authorization, though a duly empowered officer may act on behalf of the creditor.

---