Jurisdiction Issue: Application Returned Due to Incorrect Registered Office Address

The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to a discrepancy in the registered office address of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor successfully argued that its registered office was in Gurgaon, Haryana, not Hyderabad as indicated by the Operational Creditor. The Tribunal found that the application should have been filed before the NCLT having jurisdiction over the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Gurgaon, Haryana, and ordered the return of the application for presentation before the appropriate NCLT.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal over the application filed under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code based on the registered office of the corporate debtor.

Analysis:
The petition was filed by an Operational Creditor against a Corporate Debtor for defaulting in repayment, seeking admission of the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Operational Creditor leased out terrace rights to the Corporate Debtor for installing a telecom tower, but the rental amounts remained unpaid, leading to the petition. The Corporate Debtor raised objections regarding the maintainability of the application, questioning the address provided by the Operational Creditor and arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the discrepancy in the registered office address mentioned in the application.

The Corporate Debtor contended that the Operational Creditor wrongly indicated the registered office address in the application, and the Corporate Debtor's registered office was actually in Gurgaon, Haryana, not Hyderabad. The Corporate Debtor emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the registered office location of the Corporate Debtor, as per Section 60(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Corporate Debtor highlighted that despite the circle office being in Hyderabad, it does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal, and the registered office address is the determining factor for jurisdiction as per Section 61 of the Code.

The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including the order confirming the shift of the Corporate Debtor's registered office from New Delhi to Gurgaon, Haryana. Based on the lease deed and the current registered office location, the Tribunal concluded that the Operational Creditor should have filed the application before the NCLT having jurisdiction over the registered office in Gurgaon, Haryana. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application and ordered the return of the application to the Operational Creditor for presentation before the appropriate NCLT with jurisdiction over the Corporate Debtor's registered office in Gurgaon, Haryana.

---