Loading..
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • SECTION 61 INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE 2016
  • SECTION 433 COMPANIES ACT 1956
  • 28. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
  • section 8 of the I&B Code." 5
  • Form-3 and Form-4, read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and Section 8 of the I&B Code,
  • provisions of I&B Code, read with Rules,
  • Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016
  • Section 80 of C.P.C.
  • Section 8 of the I&B Code,
  • 4." 29. Clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
  • provisions of sub-section (3)(c) of Section 9
  • sub-Section (1) of Section 8
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • SECTION 61 INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE 2016
  • SECTION 433 COMPANIES ACT 1956
  • 28. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
  • section 8 of the I&B Code." 5
  • Form-3 and Form-4, read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and Section 8 of the I&B Code,
  • provisions of I&B Code, read with Rules,
  • Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016
  • Section 80 of C.P.C.
  • Section 8 of the I&B Code,
  • 4." 29. Clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
  • provisions of sub-section (3)(c) of Section 9
  • sub-Section (1) of Section 8
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was preferred by Mr. Senthil Kumar Karmegam, identified in the opinion as the Director of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal challenged the Adjudicating Authority's (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) order dated 20 June 2017 in C.P. No. 594/I&BP/2017, by which the application filed by Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd. (the Operational Creditor) under Section 9 of the I&B Code was admitted, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated, moratorium was declared, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India was requested to recommend the name of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The appellant raised, among other contentions, that: (a) the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code was not issued by the Operational Creditor itself but by an advocate on its behalf (a notice dated 17 March 2017 issued by Ms. Prinyanka Patel, Advocate is on record); and (b) the bank certificate annexed to the petition did not conform to the requirements of Section 9(3)(c) of the I&B Code. Notices were issued to the respondents (including the Corporate Debtor) through the IRP, but the respondents did not appear to oppose or dispute the facts.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code, required to be in Form-3 or Form-4 (Rule 5), can be validly issued by an advocate, chartered accountant, or company secretary who does not hold any position "with or in relation to" the Operational Creditor or lacks express authority to act on its behalf.
  2. Whether the bank certificate attached to the Section 9 application complied with the requirements of Section 9(3)(c) of the I&B Code.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The demand notice under Section 8(1) was issued by an advocate on behalf of the Operational Creditor (Ms. Prinyanka Patel), which the appellant contended was not permissible under the I&B Code and Rules because the notice must be in Form-3 or Form-4 and must be issued by the Operational Creditor or a person authorised who holds a position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor.
  • The bank certificate annexed to the petition allegedly did not comply with subsection (3)(c) of Section 9 of the I&B Code.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments; the record reflects that respondents did not appear to oppose or dispute the facts after service through the IRP.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Uttam Galve Steels Limited v. DF Deutsche Forfait AG & Anr. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 39 of 2017 The requirement that a demand notice under Section 8 must be in Form-3 or Form-4 (Rule 5) and that only the Operational Creditor or a person authorised to act on its behalf who "holds position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor" may validly issue such a notice; an advocate, CA or CS without authority/position cannot issue the Section 8 notice. The Tribunal applied this precedent directly, finding the present demand notice was issued by an advocate without evidence of holding any position "with or in relation to" the Operational Creditor and was not in Form-3 or Form-4; on that basis the initiation of CIRP could not be upheld and the impugned order was set aside.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme: Section 8 of the I&B Code requires the Operational Creditor to deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debt to the Corporate Debtor "in such form and manner as is prescribed." Rule 5(1) of the Adjudicating Authority Rules prescribes delivery of a demand notice in Form-3 or an invoice in Form-4. Form-3 expressly contemplates that the notice be signed by "person authorised to act on behalf of the operational creditor" and requires that person's position "with or in relation to the operational creditor" to be stated.

Relying on the Tribunal's earlier decision in Uttam Galve Steels (supra), the court reasoned that the statutory framework and prescribed forms demonstrate Parliament's intent that an Operational Creditor may apply either personally or through a person authorised to act on its behalf, and that such authorised person must hold a position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor (or otherwise have appropriate authority). The court emphasized that a notice in Form-3/4 gives the Corporate Debtor clear information about the claim and the consequences of non-payment; a mere advocate's notice (a "lawyer's notice") is legally distinct and insufficient to trigger the non-negotiable consequences under Section 8 unless the advocate is authorised in the prescribed manner.

Applying these principles to the facts on record, the Tribunal found the demand notice before it was issued by an advocate (Ms. Prinyanka Patel), was not in Form-3 or Form-4 as required, and there was nothing on record to show that the advocate held any position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor or otherwise had the requisite authority. For these reasons, the Tribunal held that the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could not be sustained.

Holding and Implications

IMPOUNDING OF INITIATION — APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 9 DISMISSED

Holding (core ruling): The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 20 June 2017 of the Adjudicating Authority admitting the Section 9 application, held that initiation of the CIRP based on the defective notice could not be upheld, and dismissed the Section 9 application filed by the respondent Operational Creditor.

Direct consequences and operational implications:

  • All orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to the impugned order — including appointment of any Interim Resolution Professional, declaration of moratorium, any freezing of accounts, and any actions taken by the IRP (including advertisements calling for applications) — were declared illegal and set aside.
  • The Adjudicating Authority was directed to close the proceeding; the Corporate Debtor (and appellant) was released from the rigours of the insolvency process and allowed to function independently through its Board of Directors with immediate effect.
  • The Adjudicating Authority was to fix the fee of the Interim Resolution Professional (if appointed), and the appellant was directed to pay the fees for the period the IRP had functioned.
  • No costs were ordered in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The opinion applied an existing precedent (Uttam Galve Steels Limited v. DF Deutsche Forfait AG & Anr.) in reaching its decision; the order resolves the dispute on the record before the Tribunal and implements the statutory/formal requirements for Section 8 notices and Rule 5 without announcing any broader novel doctrine beyond the cited precedent.

    Senthil Kumar Karmegam v. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd.

    NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

    NEW DELHI

    Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 154 of 2017

    IN THE MATTER OF:

    Mr. Senthil Kumar Karmegam ...Appellant Vs.

    1. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd.

    2. Unison Engineering & Construction Private Ltd. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Arun Saxena and Ms. Nalini, Advocates.

    O R D E R

    02.11.2017- The appellant, Director of Corporate Debtor has preferred this appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I&B Code') against the order dated 20thJune, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench in C.P. No. 594/I&BP/2017 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the respondent - Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Operational Creditor') for initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' has been admitted, order of moratorium has been declared and the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India has been requested to recommend the name of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

    2. One of the plea taken by the appellant is that the demand notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 8 was not issued by the Operational Creditor but

    1

    2

    by an advocate on behalf of the 'Operational Creditor', which is not permissible. The other ground taken is that the Bank Certificate attached is not in terms of the provisions of sub-section (3)(c) of Section 9 of the I & B Code.

    3. Notices were issued on respondents including the Corporate Debtor through the Interim Resolution Professional but in spite of service of notice, they did not appear to oppose nor disputed the facts.

    4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant brought to our notice the purported demand notice dated 17thMarch, 2017 from which we find that the notice was issued by one Ms. Prinyanka Patel, Advocate on behalf of Operational Creditor.

    5. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in

    Uttam Galve Steels Limited v. DF Deutsche Forfait AG & Anr. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 39 of 2017 wherein this Appellate Tribunal held as follows:

    "27. From a plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 8, it is clear that on occurrence of default, the Operational Creditor is required to deliver the demand notice of unpaid Operational Debt and copy of the invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the Corporate Debtor in such form and manner as is prescribed.

    28. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the 'Adjudicating Authority Rules' mandates the 'Operational Creditor' to deliver to the 'Corporate Debtor' the demand notice in Form-3 or invoice attached with the notice in Form-4, as quoted below: -

    3

    "Rule 5. (1) An operational creditor shall deliver to the corporate debtor the following documents, namely: -

    (a) a demand notice in Form 3; or

    (b) a copy of an invoice attached with a notice in Form 4."

    29. Clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the 'Adjudicating Authority Rules' provides the format in which the demand notice/invoice demanding payment in respect of unpaid 'Operational Debt' is to be issued by 'Operational Creditor'. As per Rule 5(1) (a) & (b), the following person (s) are authorised to act on behalf of operational creditor, as apparent from the last portion of Form-3 which reads as follows: -

    "6. The undersigned request you to unconditionally repay the unpaid operational debt (in default) in full within ten days from the receipt of this letter failing which we shall initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of [name of corporate debtor].

    Yours sincerely,

    Signature of person authorised to act on behalf of the operational creditor

    Name in block letters

    Position with or in relation to the operational creditor Address of person signing

    30. From bare perusal of Form-3 and Form-4, read with sub-rule

    (1) of Rule 5 and Section 8 of the I&B Code, it is clear that an Operational Creditor can apply himself or through a person authorised to act on behalf of Operational Creditor. The person who is authorised to act on behalf of Operational Creditor is also required to state "his position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor", meaning thereby the person authorised by Operational

    4

    Creditor must hold position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor and only such person can apply.

    31. The demand notice/invoice Demanding Payment under the I&B Code is required to be issued in Form-3 or Form - 4. Through the said formats, the 'Corporate Debtor' is to be informed of particulars of 'Operational Debt', with a demand of payment, with clear understanding that the 'Operational Debt' (in default) required to pay the debt, as claimed, unconditionally within ten days from the date of receipt of letter failing which the 'Operational Creditor' will initiate a Corporate Insolvency Process in respect of 'Corporate Debtor', as apparent from last paragraph no. 6 of notice contained in Form - 3, and quoted above.

    Only if such notice in Form-3 is served, the 'Corporate Debtor' will understand the serious consequences of non-payment of 'Operational Debt', otherwise like any normal pleader notice/Advocate notice, like notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. or for proceeding under Section 433 of the Companies Act 1956, the 'Corporate Debtor' may decide to contest the suit/case if filed, distinct Corporate Resolution Process, where such claim otherwise cannot be contested, except where there is an existence of dispute, prior to issue of notice under Section 8.

    32. In view of provisions of I&B Code, read with Rules, as referred to above, we hold that an 'Advocate/Lawyer' or 'Chartered Accountant' or 'Company Secretary' in absence of any authority of the Board of Directors, and holding no position with or in relation to the Operational Creditor cannot issue any notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code, which otherwise is a 'lawyer's notice' as distinct from notice to be given by operational creditor in terms of section 8 of the I&B Code."

    5

    6. In the present case as the demand notice has been given by an advocate and there is nothing on record to suggest that the advocate in question holds any position with or in relation to the respondent - Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd. and the demand notice has not been issued in mandatory Form 3 or Form 4, as stipulated, under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the initiation of resolution process cannot be upheld. The case of the appellant being covered by the decision of the Uttam Galve Steel Limited (Supra), we have no other option but to set aside the impugned order.

    7. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai Bench in C.P. No. 594/I&BP/2017.

    8. In effect, order(s) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointing any 'Interim Resolution Professional' or declaring moratorium, freezing of account, if any, and all other order(s) passed by Adjudicating Authority pursuant to impugned order and action taken by the 'Interim Resolution Professional', including the advertisement published in the newspaper calling for applications all such orders and actions are declared illegal and are set aside. The application preferred by Respondent under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 is dismissed. Learned Adjudicating Authority will now close the proceeding. The appellant company is released from all the rigour of law and is allowed to function independently through its Board of Directors from immediate effect.

    9. Learned Adjudicating Authority will fix the fee of 'Interim Resolution Professional', if appointed, and the appellant will pay the fees of the Interim

    6

    Resolution Professional, for the period he has functioned. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation and direction. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya)

    Chairperson

    (Justice Bansi Lal Bhat)

    Member(Judicial)

    ns/uk

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Senthil Kumar Karmegam v. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd.
    (Nov 2, 2017)