UT Worldwide (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Integrated Caps (P.) Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2017 TaxPub(CL) 0889 (NCLT-Del) UT Worldwide (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Integrated Caps (P.) Ltd. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 --Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor--Application against non-payment of transport handling and forwarding consignment servicesDemand notice under section 8 signed by an Advocate--Neither produced any authorization nor filed banker's certificate in compliance with provisions of section 9(3)(c)--Where demand notice under section 8 had been signed by an Advocate, who claimed to be authorized on behalf of operational creditor, but documents enclosed with application did not contain that any authorization had been given by the operational creditor to the Advocate prior to issue of the notice of demand and also the operational creditor had not filed banker's certificate in compliance with provisions of section 9(3)(c), therefore, the application filed by operational creditor under section 9 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process was to be dismissed--Operational creditor was engaged by corporate debtor for freight forwarding services for transport handling and forwarding its goods consignment. Operational creditor raised invoices, but the corporate debtor failed to pay outstanding due to the operational creditor in respect of the services. Therefore, the operational creditor filed application under section 9 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor on the ground that the corporate had neither paid the amount nor any dispute had been raised by the corporate debtor in relation to demand notice under section 8. Held: On perusal of documents enclosed with the application, it was found that notice of demand under section 8 had been signed by an Advocate, who claimed to be authorized on behalf of the operational creditor, but the documents did not contain that any authorization had been given by the operational creditor to the Advocate prior to issue of the notice of demand. Further that, the operational creditor had not filed banker's certificate in compliance with provisions of section 9(3)(c). Hence, the application was to be dismissed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2017 TaxPub(CL) 0889 (NCLT-Del)

UT Worldwide (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Integrated Caps (P.) Ltd.

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

--Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor--Application against non-payment of transport handling and forwarding consignment servicesDemand notice under section 8 signed by an Advocate--Neither produced any authorization nor filed banker's certificate in compliance with provisions of section 9(3)(c)--Where demand notice under section 8 had been signed by an Advocate, who claimed to be authorized on behalf of operational creditor, but documents enclosed with application did not contain that any authorization had been given by the operational creditor to the Advocate prior to issue of the notice of demand and also the operational creditor had not filed banker's certificate in compliance with provisions of section 9(3)(c), therefore, the application filed by operational creditor under section 9 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process was to be dismissed--Operational creditor was engaged by corporate debtor for freight forwarding services for transport handling and forwarding its goods consignment. Operational creditor raised invoices, but the corporate debtor failed to pay outstanding due to the operational creditor in respect of the services. Therefore, the operational creditor filed application under section 9 for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor on the ground that the corporate had neither paid the amount nor any dispute had been raised by the corporate debtor in relation to demand notice under section 8. Held: On perusal of documents enclosed with the application, it was found that notice of demand under section 8 had been signed by an Advocate, who claimed to be authorized on behalf of the operational creditor, but the documents did not contain that any authorization had been given by the operational creditor to the Advocate prior to issue of the notice of demand. Further that, the operational creditor had not filed banker's certificate in compliance with provisions of section 9(3)(c). Hence, the application was to be dismissed.