Insolvency notice and Section 9 completeness rules upheld, with CIRP refused as a recovery tool

An advocate-signed demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as valid when issued on behalf of an operational creditor, as the statutory scheme permits notice through counsel. The Section 9 application was rejected as incomplete because it lacked the supporting material required to establish debt, default and non-payment, including basic transaction and bank records. The tribunal also accepted that insolvency proceedings are a resolution mechanism and not a debt recovery device, and that admission may be refused where the process is invoked for an improper recovery purpose, including in relation to a viable going concern. The dismissal of the Section 9 application was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 issued by an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor is valid. (ii) Whether the Section 9 application was liable to be rejected for incompleteness and failure to furnish supporting documents. (iii) Whether the corporate debtor being a going concern and MSME could justify rejection of the insolvency petition on the ground that the Code is not a recovery mechanism, and whether the Adjudicating Authority could refuse admission on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 issued by an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor is valid.

Analysis: The advocate-signed demand notice was held to be valid. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that a lawyer may issue a demand notice on behalf of an operational creditor, and no separate proof of long association with the creditor was required. Reliance was placed on the principle that Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, read with the relevant rules and forms, permit such notice to be sent by a lawyer acting for the creditor.

Conclusion: The objection to the demand notice was rejected and the notice was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Section 9 application was liable to be rejected for incompleteness and failure to furnish supporting documents.

Analysis: The application was found to be incomplete because the operational creditor had not produced the necessary supporting material, including purchase orders, delivery challans, bank statements, and other records contemplated by the Code and the prescribed forms and regulations. The statutory framework under Section 9, the application rules, and the insolvency regulations requires a complete application supported by documents showing the debt, default, and non-payment. The omission of such material justified rejection of the application.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Section 9 application on the ground of incompleteness was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the corporate debtor being a going concern and MSME could justify rejection of the insolvency petition on the ground that the Code is not a recovery mechanism, and whether the Adjudicating Authority could refuse admission on that basis.

Analysis: The Code was treated as a resolution statute and not a recovery forum. The tribunal accepted that CIRP should not be used as a debt recovery tool, particularly where the debtor is a viable going concern and the petition appears to be driven by recovery objectives. It further noted that the Adjudicating Authority has discretion in admitting or rejecting an application even where debt and default are asserted, and relied on the principle that insolvency proceedings cannot be invoked for an improper purpose.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application on this ground was also sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the Section 9 application was affirmed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 may validly be issued by an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor, but a Section 9 application must be complete and supported by the prescribed documents, and insolvency cannot be invoked as a mere recovery device where the Adjudicating Authority declines admission in the exercise of its statutory discretion.

---