2022 (2) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for the Appellant as well as counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench dated 23.11.2020 by which application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 has been rejected. A demand notice dated 07.10.2019 was issued under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') to the Corporate Debtor claiming debt of an amount Rs. 1,45,49,837/- alongwith interest as due. Notice was not replied by the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor thereafter on 23.11.2020 filed a Section 9 application. The Adjudicating Authority issued notice on the application. The Corporate Debtor appeared befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce." 2. Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the notice under Section 8 was issued by Director of the Company who was fully authorized and in the Section 9 application demand notice was mentioned and relied by the Operational Creditor for proceeding under Section 9. It is submitted by Shri Datta the Adjudicating Authority should have given opportunity to the Operational Creditor to clarify if there was any doubt regarding the details of the person who has given the notice. It would have been clarified that he was the Director of the Company but without giving any opportunity application under Section 9 was rejected on such technical ground. Power of Attorney has also been brought on record by the Appellan....