TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal dismisses petition, declares actions illegal, releases appellant, directs fee determination. Intent to settle dispute.</h1> <h3>Mass Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.</h3> Mass Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. - [2019] 212 Comp Cas 629 (NCLAT - Del) Issues:1. Challenge to order admitting Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under I&B Code.2. Validity of notice under Section 8 of I&B Code issued by an advocate/lawyer.3. Lack of proper notice and violation of natural justice by Adjudicating Authority.Issue 1: Challenge to order admitting Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under I&B CodeThe appellant challenged the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which treated the Transfer Petition under Section 434(1)(a) as a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, declared moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional in accordance with the I&B Code.Issue 2: Validity of notice under Section 8 of I&B Code issued by an advocate/lawyerThe respondent, an operational creditor, issued a notice under Section 8 to the appellant, a corporate debtor, through an advocate/lawyer. The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous judgment regarding the issuance of such notices. It was held 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. In this case, as the advocate/lawyer was not authorized by the Board of Directors and did not hold any position with the respondent, the notice issued by the advocate/lawyer could not be considered a valid notice under Section 8. Consequently, the petition under Section 9 against the appellant was deemed not maintainable.Issue 3: Lack of proper notice and violation of natural justice by Adjudicating AuthorityThe Adjudicating Authority failed to serve a notice on the appellant before passing the impugned order. The respondent claimed to have issued a notice, but it was found that the notice was sent by the operational creditor and not the Adjudicating Authority. Another order highlighted limited notice requirements before admitting a case. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice and providing a proper opportunity to the corporate debtor before passing orders. As the notice under Section 8 was not valid, and the appellant was not given a fair opportunity, the impugned order was set aside. Consequently, all actions taken based on the impugned order were declared illegal, and the appellant was released to function independently through its Board of Directors.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, dismissed the petition by the operational creditor, declared all related actions illegal, and released the appellant from the imposed restrictions. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to determine the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional, to be paid by the appellant. Additionally, the appellant expressed intent to settle the dispute with the operational creditor to prevent further actions.
TaxTMI 