Petition dismissed under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to lack of proper authorization

Raychem RPG P. Ltd. Versus Anwesha Engineering And Projects Ltd. (formerly known as IOT Anwesha Engineering and Construction Ltd.)

Raychem RPG P. Ltd. Versus Anwesha Engineering And Projects Ltd. (formerly known as IOT Anwesha Engineering and Construction Ltd.) - TMI Issues:
1. Proper authorization for filing the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Maintainability of the petition based on the authorization provided.

Issue 1: Proper authorization for filing the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The petition was filed by Ms. Sneha Ranade, authorized by the board of directors of the operational creditor company in 2015, before the Code came into force. The tribunal referred to the decision in Palogix Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., stating that only an authorized person, distinct from a power of attorney holder, can make an application under sections 7, 9, and 10. The tribunal noted that the authorization in this case was from 2015, pre-dating the existence of the Code. As the resolution did not disclose any power to file an application before the tribunal, the application was deemed not maintainable on the ground of improper authorization.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the petition based on the authorization provided:
During the hearing, the respondent mentioned making a part payment and attempting to reach an agreement, which the petitioner denied. However, the tribunal, instead of delving into the merits of the case, focused on the issue of proper authorization. Given that the authorization was from a time before the Code was in effect and did not specify the power to file an application before the tribunal, the application was dismissed as not maintainable. No costs were awarded in this regard.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to the lack of proper authorization for filing the application, as the authorization predated the existence of the Code and did not specifically grant the power to file before the tribunal. The tribunal emphasized the importance of distinct authorization for such applications and highlighted the specific requirements under the Code for authorized persons to initiate proceedings.