Appeal allowed after delay in filing; impugned order set aside due to lack of proper authorization.

The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal after condoning a delay of 11 days in filing. The impugned order based on a notice issued by a legal firm, not the Operational Creditor, was set aside as the lawyer lacked proper authorization. Consequently, all orders by the Adjudicating Authority, including the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, were deemed illegal, and the appellant company was released from obligations. The respondents were directed to pay the fees of the Interim Resolution Professional for the period of service.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, validity of the notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, authority to issue notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code, setting aside the impugned order, legality of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, dismissal of the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, release of the appellant company from legal obligations, payment of fees to the Interim Resolution Professional.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days, necessitating an application for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the closure of the Appellate Tribunal during summer vacations. After considering the submissions, the delay of 11 days was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal.

Validity of Notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration as the notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code was not issued by the respondent 'Operational Creditor' but by a legal firm. It was revealed that the notice was indeed not issued by the Operational Creditor, a fact acknowledged by the respondent's counsel.

Authority to Issue Notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code:
The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was established that only a person authorized to act on behalf of the Operational Creditor, holding a position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor, can issue a notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code. In this case, as an advocate/lawyer issued the notice without proper authorization or position with the Operational Creditor, the notice could not be considered valid under the I&B Code.

Setting Aside the Impugned Order:
Citing the precedent set in a related case, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the notice issued by the lawyer on behalf of the respondent did not meet the requirements of Section 8 of the I&B Code. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, rendering any actions taken based on that order as illegal.

Legality of Orders Passed by the Adjudicating Authority:
All orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, including the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional and any related actions, were declared illegal and set aside. The application under Section 9 of the I&B Code was dismissed, and the appellant company was released from legal obligations to function independently through its Board of Directors.

Payment of Fees to the Interim Resolution Professional:
The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with fixing the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional, if appointed, with the respondents responsible for paying the fees for the period of the professional's service. The appeal was allowed with the mentioned observations and directions, with no costs awarded in the circumstances of the case.

---