Notice under Insolvency Code not mandatory post winding-up transfer; Companies Act notice suffices

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not mandatory after the transfer of winding-up proceedings. The statutory notice served under the Companies Act suffices for initiating proceedings under the Code. Previous judgments stating otherwise were overruled, affirming the maintainability of the application without the Section 8 notice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is mandatory after the transfer of a winding-up petition to the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Whether the law laid down in previous cases regarding the necessity of a Section 8 notice is correct.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Mandatory Notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

The appeal challenges the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) without serving a mandatory notice of demand under Section 8 of the Code. The Appellant argued that the application was not maintainable without this notice, as it is a mandatory requirement under Section 8. The Respondent contended that the notice under Section 8 was unnecessary because a statutory notice under Section 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 had already been served.

The Tribunal examined the scheme of the Code, particularly the requirements for filing an application under Section 9, which necessitates a demand notice under Section 8. However, it also considered the legislative intent behind Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows for the transfer of pending winding-up proceedings to the Tribunal to be dealt with under the Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the language of Rule 5 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 does not mandate the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 8 for applications transferred from winding-up petitions. The statutory notice served under Section 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 suffices for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the Code. Therefore, the first question was answered in the negative, stating that a notice under Section 8 is not necessary or mandatory after the transfer of winding-up proceedings.

Issue 2: Correctness of Previous Judgments

The Tribunal reviewed three previous decisions'Sabari Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rameesh Associates Pvt. Ltd., Mosmetro Story (FZE) Vs. BASF India Ltd. & Anr., and Shailendra Sharma, Director of R&M International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ercon Composites (Through IRP Mr. Nayana Premji Savala) & Anr.'which held that a notice under Section 8 is mandatory even after the transfer of winding-up petitions.

In Sabari Inn Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal had ruled that an application under Section 9 of the Code was not maintainable without a Section 8 notice. Similarly, in Mosmetro Story (FZE), the Tribunal held that the absence of a Section 8 notice rendered the application invalid. The Shailendra Sharma case reiterated these views.

However, the Tribunal in the current judgment found that these decisions were not laying down the correct law. It held that the service of a notice under Section 8 is not a mandatory requirement for applications transferred from winding-up petitions. Consequently, the previous decisions were overruled.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that after the transfer of winding-up proceedings, a notice under Section 8 of the Code is not mandatory for treating the application under Section 9. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the application filed by the Operational Creditor was maintainable without the Section 8 notice. The previous judgments requiring such a notice were overruled as incorrect interpretations of the law.

---