Appeal dismissed due to unauthorized filing by Company Secretary under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code

The appeal by M/s Paharpur Colling Towers Limited (Operational Creditor) against the dismissal of their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was denied by the Appellate Tribunal. The dismissal was upheld due to the existence of a dispute and the incorrect filing of the application by the Company Secretary, who was found not authorized to file on behalf of the creditor. The Tribunal emphasized that a "Power of Attorney Holder" cannot file on behalf of a Financial or Operational Creditor. The Appellant was advised to pursue any admitted dues through the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues:
- Dismissal of application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 due to the existence of a dispute and incorrect filing by the Company Secretary.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s Paharpur Colling Towers Limited (Operational Creditor) against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which dismissed the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dismissal was based on the grounds that there was an "existence of dispute" and the application was not filed directly by the Operational Creditor but by its Company Secretary. The Appellant argued that more time should have been granted to rectify the defect and that the Company Secretary was authorized to file the application. However, the Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and held that a "Power of Attorney Holder" is not competent to file an application on behalf of a Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor. Therefore, the request to file another application under Section 9 of the I&B Code was denied.

The Respondents had raised disputes supported by documents, including an email and other records. The Appellant's Counsel mentioned a letter issued by an Advocate on behalf of the Appellant, but this was disputed by the Respondent. The Appellate Tribunal noted that even if there is a dispute over the amount, if a certain amount is admitted by the Respondents but remains unpaid, the Appellant can prefer an application under Section 9 after giving notice to the Respondent as per the provisions of the I&B Code.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order but allowed the Appellant to approach the appropriate forum regarding any admitted dues. The appeal was disposed of with this observation and no costs were awarded.

---