9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 99 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInsolvency & Bankruptcy Code - Maintainability of the application under IBC, 2016 - Held that - t the notice of demand despite efforts taken by the Applicant has not been served. Further no evidence has also been adduced about the service of the application upon the Corporate Debtor all of which precludes the Corporate Debtor to reply or appear before this Tribunal and under such circumstances it has been held by the Hon ble Appellate Tribunal to be not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In addition to the above, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 9(3)(c) on the part of the Applicant is also fatal to the maintainability of the application under IBC, 2016 by an Operational Creditor as held by the Hon ble NCLAT in the case of Smart Timing Steel Ltd. v. National Steel and Agro Industries Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2017 (6) TMI 880 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE, MUMBAI - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Lease agreement dispute between Lease Plan India Private Ltd. (Operational Creditor) and Corporate Debtor. 2. Transfer of Company Petition from High Court to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). 3. Issuance of demand notice under Section 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to Corporate Debtor. 4. Compliance with formalities under IBC, 2016 by the Applicant. 5. Validity of notice under Section 8 of IBC, 2016. 6. Compliance with provisions of Section 9(3)(c) by the Applicant. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute between Lease Plan India Private Ltd., referred to as the Operational Creditor, and the Corporate Debtor regarding a lease agreement for two vehicles. The Operational Creditor alleged non-payment of rental lease by the Corporate Debtor, leading to repossession of the vehicles and subsequent legal actions. 2. The Company Petition was transferred from the High Court to the NCLT, where the Applicant proceeded with the case. The NCLT granted liberty to the Operational Creditor to take action under the provisions of IBC, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor. 3. The Operational Creditor issued a demand notice under Section 8 of IBC, 2016 to the Corporate Debtor, demanding payment of the outstanding amount. Despite no response or payment from the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor approached the NCLT for resolution. 4. The Applicant filed necessary documents and complied with the formalities required under IBC, 2016, including serving the notice of application to the respondent company. 5. The validity of the notice issued under Section 8 of IBC, 2016 was questioned, as it was found that the notice was not in accordance with the prescribed rules. The absence of evidence regarding the service of the notice and non-compliance with the principles of natural justice led to the dismissal of the application by the NCLT. 6. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9(3)(c) by the Applicant was considered fatal to the maintainability of the application under IBC, 2016. Citing relevant judgments, the NCLT dismissed the petition due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of IBC, 2016, while allowing the Petitioner to seek other available remedies.
|
