Tribunal Overturns Dismissal, Validates Advocate's Demand Notice; No Board Resolution Needed for Authorization &BCode.

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, affirming the validity of a demand notice issued by an Advocate on behalf of an Operational Creditor. It ruled that no Board Resolution was necessary for such authorization, emphasizing judicial consistency. The matter was remitted for further consideration, allowing the Corporate Debtor a chance to settle the claim.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of demand notice issued by Operational Creditor.
2. Requirement of authorization for issuance of demand notice by an Advocate.
3. Judicial consistency in interpreting the law.

Issue 1: Validity of demand notice issued by Operational Creditor
The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the dismissal of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) by the Adjudicating Authority. The dismissal was based on the contention that the demand notice was issued without authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the delivery of a demand notice of unpaid operational debt is essential for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the I&B Code. The prescribed format for the demand notice is outlined in Form-3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the demand notice in question was issued by an Advocate on behalf of the Operational Creditor, which was deemed valid as per legal precedents. It was established that the notice was duly instructed by the Operational Creditor, and no Board Resolution was required in such cases.

Issue 2: Requirement of authorization for issuance of demand notice by an Advocate
The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was held that an Advocate can issue a demand notice on behalf of the client, i.e., the operational creditor. It emphasized that once an Advocate is authorized to issue the demand notice, it fulfills the requirement of being delivered by an authorized person. The Adjudicating Authority's insistence on a Board Resolution for authorization in this case was deemed unsustainable, as the Advocate's instructions were considered sufficient.

Issue 3: Judicial consistency in interpreting the law
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of judicial consistency in interpreting legal provisions. It noted that the Adjudicating Authority had previously taken a correct view on a similar issue, emphasizing the need to maintain consistency based on legal precedents. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for further consideration. The Appellant was directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority, and the appeal was allowed, providing an opportunity for the Corporate Debtor to settle the claim of the Operational Creditor.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment focused on the validity of the demand notice, the authorization required for an Advocate to issue such notice, and the importance of judicial consistency in interpreting legal provisions related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

---