Appellate Tribunal upholds decision reviving Application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the revival of an Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The initial dismissal of the application was due to the Corporate Debtor's name being struck off the Register of Companies. After the restoration of the Corporate Debtor's name, the Operational Creditor was deemed justified in reviving the application. The Tribunal found no error in the previous order and dismissed the appeal without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the dismissal of an Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a Corporate Debtor whose name had been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, and the subsequent revival of the application after the restoration of the Corporate Debtor's name on the Register.

Issue 1: Dismissal of Application under Section 9:
The Operational Creditor filed an Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the Corporate Debtor for an Operational Debt amounting to Rs.13,70,502. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 29.01.2019 because the Corporate Debtor's name had already been struck off the Register of Companies on 09.08.2018, rendering the application against a non-existent entity.

Issue 2: Restoration of Corporate Debtor's Name:
The Operational Creditor then filed an Application under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking restoration of the Corporate Debtor's name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. This application was allowed on 02.03.2021, leading to the Corporate Debtor regaining its active status since 14.04.2021.

Issue 3: Revival of the Application under Section 9:
Subsequently, the Operational Creditor filed a new Application for the revival of the main Petition under Section 9 on 03.06.2021. The Corporate Debtor contested this application on the grounds that an appeal should have been filed against the initial dismissal order and that the restoration application should have been filed earlier. However, the Tribunal rejected these contentions, stating that the restoration application was pending, justifying the delay in filing the revival application.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the initial dismissal of the Section 9 application was due to the Corporate Debtor's name being struck off the Register. After the name restoration, the Operational Creditor was justified in reviving the application. The Tribunal found no error in the previous order and dismissed the appeal without costs.

---