https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352581 Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as directory rather than mandatory because the financial institution certificate served an evidentiary, procedural function and a mandatory reading would create an impractical and discriminatory threshold inconsistent with the Code's object. The Court also held that a demand notice under Section 8 may be issued by a duly authorized lawyer, since the statutory language and prescribed forms permit action through an authorised person and there was no prohibition excluding legal practitioners. The prior decision was set aside on both issues and the matter was remitted for further proceedings. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352581 Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as directory rather than mandatory because the financial institution certificate served an evidentiary, procedural function and a mandatory reading would create an impractical and discriminatory threshold inconsistent with the Code's object. The Court also held that a demand notice under Section 8 may be issued by a duly authorized lawyer, since the statutory language and prescribed forms permit action through an authorised person and there was no prohibition excluding legal practitioners. The prior decision was set aside on both issues and the matter was remitted for further proceedings. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352581