IBC technical objections fail where authorisation, demand notice, delivery records and liability are substantially supported by contemporaneous documents.

Technical objections to a section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application were rejected where the filing was backed by board authorisation and a named representative's authority, and the corporate debtor raised no challenge to the operational creditor's internal authorisation process. The section 8 demand notice was also upheld because the accompanying contract, invoice, bill of lading and related shipping records substantially satisfied the prescribed requirements. On the merits, contemporaneous documents, acknowledgements and emails showed delivery, acceptance and outstanding liability, so the defence of non-receipt of goods failed and operational debt and default were treated as established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was vitiated for want of valid authority in favour of the person who filed it; (ii) whether the demand notice under section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was invalid for not being in the prescribed form; (iii) whether the corporate debtor had successfully shown that the goods were not received and that no operational debt was due.

Issue (i): whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was vitiated for want of valid authority in favour of the person who filed it.

Analysis: The application was supported by a board resolution and a separate document recording authorisation in favour of the named representative. The objection that the resolution was not apostilled or notarised was treated as a technical objection, especially since the resolution was signed by the directors and there was no challenge from the operational creditor itself to the manner of authorisation. The reliance on section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was held inapposite because the case concerned corporate authorisation, not proof of a power of attorney.

Conclusion: The objection to authority was rejected and the application was held to be validly instituted.

Issue (ii): whether the demand notice under section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was invalid for not being in the prescribed form.

Analysis: The notice was accompanied by the sales contract, invoice, bill of lading, packing list, certificate of origin, certificate of weight and declaration, as well as calculation of the amount claimed. These materials satisfied the statutory requirements and the prescribed format was treated as directory where the substance of the demand notice was fully met. The objection was therefore treated as a mere technicality.

Conclusion: The demand notice was held to be a valid demand notice under the Code.

Issue (iii): whether the corporate debtor had successfully shown that the goods were not received and that no operational debt was due.

Analysis: The documents on record, including the sales contract, tax invoice, bill of lading, packing list, certificate of origin, certificate of weight, declaration, acknowledgement letters and emails, showed delivery and acceptance of the shipment and also reflected acknowledgment of outstanding payment. The Tribunal relied on these documents to reject the contention that the goods were delivered elsewhere or that no liability arose. On that basis, the ingredients for admission of the section 9 application were treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The defence of non-receipt of goods and absence of liability was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The admitted operational debt and default were upheld, and the insolvency application under section 9 remained admitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice and section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will not fail on technical objections where the statutory requirements are substantially complied with and the contemporaneous record shows acknowledgment of supply and liability.

---