2021 (4) TMI 813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ode'), which was dismissed on the ground that the Authorisation annexed with the application was of the year 2013, i.e. before the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came into force. 3. It is contended that there is no specific provision neither in the Code nor under the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, which mandates authorisation post-enactment of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016. Instead of deciding the Section 9 Application on merit, the Learned Adjudicating Authority rejected the application as not maintainable for want of proper Authorisation, which happens to be of 2013 when the I&B Code was not in existence. 4. The Appellant contends that the Adjudicating Authority should have granted the liberty to rectify the defects if any. However, the Learned Adjudicating Authority failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant either on account of principles of natural justice or account of non-compliance of the proviso to Section 9(5) (ii)(a) of the Code. Respondent's Contention 5. The Respondent/Corporate Debtor contends that the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Code is based on a Board Resolution passed by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dates the authorisation post the enactment of the I&B Code. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Murji Patel v Aramex India Pvt Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins)No 1447 of 2019 wherein it is held that; 'authorisation letter, even if, issued prior to the enactment of I&B Code can be looked into for the purpose of entertaining an Application under Section 7 or 9 of the Code". 11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also placed reliance on the judgement of this Tribunal in case of Palogics Infrastructure Private Limited v ICICI Bank, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No 30 of 2017 wherein it is held that; "36. In so far as, the present case is concerned, the 'Financial Creditor'-Bank has pleaded that by Board's Resolutions dated 30th May, 2002 and 30th October, 2009, the Bank authorised its officers to do needful in the legal proceedings by and against the Bank. If general Authorisation is made by any 'Financial Creditor' or 'Operational Creditor' or 'Corporate Applicant' in favour of its officers to do needful in legal proceedings by and against the 'Financial Credit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7 or 9 of the Code. 15. In order to ascertain the mandatory conditions of Section 9(5)(ii)(a) of the Code, it is necessary to go through the statutory provision of the Code. Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 is reads as under; "9. Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by Operational Creditor.- (1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under sub-section (1) of Section 8, if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process. (2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. ******************** (5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), by an order- (i) admit the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor if,- (a)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r improper authorisation vitiates the entire proceedings at inception, rendering legal action devoid of Authority. 19. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further placed reliance on the direction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nibro Ltd v National Insurance Company, AIR 1991 Delhi 25 wherein it is held that the question of the Authority to institute a suit or a claim on behalf of the Company cannot be termed as a technical matter. 20. It is pertinent to mention that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a self-contained Code. It has made provision for providing an opportunity to rectify the defects of application, and in any position, it can not be denied. 21. In case of Surendra Trading Co. v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd., (2017) 16 SCC 143 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1208 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 730 at page 149 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the time provided for rectifying the defection application under Section 9 (5) of the Code is directory in nature and in the given circumstances the tribunal can provide time more than 7 days to rectify the defect. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that; "5. One of the conditions, with which we are co....