Tribunal Upholds Decision: Joint Application by Operational Creditors Not Maintainable

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, ruling that a joint application under Section 9 by multiple Operational Creditors is not maintainable. It was emphasized that individual claims must be filed separately. The Appellants failed to provide adequate evidence to support their claims, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order and directed the judgment to be uploaded on the Tribunal's website and communicated to the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a joint application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by two or more Operational Creditors is maintainable.
2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 9 of the Code by the Appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Joint Application under Section 9:
The primary issue addressed was whether a joint application under Section 9 by multiple Operational Creditors is permissible. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application, referencing the judgment in Uttam Galva Steels Ltd V DF Deutsche Forfait AG and Anr, which clarified that notices under Section 8 and petitions under Section 9 must be issued and filed by Operational Creditors individually, not jointly. The Tribunal reiterated that "a notice under Section 8 is to be issued by an ‘Operational Creditor’ individually and the petition under Section 9 has to be filed by Operational Creditor individually and not jointly." This principle was upheld, emphasizing that individual claims and notices must be distinct and separately filed.

2. Justification of Dismissal by Adjudicating Authority:
The Appellants argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing the application without adjudicating on its merits, taking a hyper-technical view that Section 9 petitions must be filed individually. They contended that the First Appellant, as an authorized representative of the Second Appellant, had rendered consultancy services to the Corporate Debtor, resulting in an operational debt of Rs. 25,70,656/-. However, the Respondent disputed the claim, asserting that the First Appellant, while employed, engaged in unauthorized business agreements causing losses, leading to the termination of his services. The Tribunal noted that the services rendered by the First Appellant were disputed, and there was no documentary evidence of consultancy services being hired by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants failed to establish their claims and the joint application was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, affirming that a joint application under Section 9 by multiple Operational Creditors is not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that individual claims must be filed separately, and the Appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of consultancy services. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Adjudicating Authority was found to be without illegality or infirmity. The judgment was directed to be uploaded on the Tribunal's website and communicated to the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.

---