Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Athena Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd vs Tanvi Construction Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1 May 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 may not be rejected on the technical ground that the Board resolution accompanying it was defective in form, where the application was filed after the Ministry of Corporate Affairs notification of 24th February, 2019 and the Adjudicating Authority has not decided the disputed question of the resolution's validity. Where the Adjudicating Authority rejects a Section 7 application on such a technical ground, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after notice to the Corporate Debtor, without going into the technicality.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 313 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Athena Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant

Vs

Tanvi Construction Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Kunal Tandon, Mr. Darryl Pereira, Mr. Mayank, Ms. Niti Jain and Ms. Richa Sandilya, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. Armin Wandrewala, Mr. Akshay Vani, Mr. Manan Jaiswal and Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Advocates.

ORDER

01.05.2019 The Appellant - Athena Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. filed

application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(I&B Code), which having been rejected by order dated 12th March, 2019

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Mumbai Bench, the present Appeal has been preferred.

2. The application under Section 7 has been rejected on technical ground

that the application under Section 7 filed by the Director on the basis of

Board's Resolution was not proper, though time was allowed to the Appellant.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 313 of 2019 Page 1 of 3

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that

the Appellant was given an opportunity to file the proper Resolution of the

meeting of the Board of Directors, but it was not produced within time, but

the same was subsequently corrected. However, we are not going to decide

such disputed question, but merely on such technicality an application

under Section 7 cannot be rejected, particularly in view of Notification dated

27th February, 2019 passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which reads

as follows: -

4. The impugned order dated 12th March, 2019 having been passed after

the Notification dated 24th February, 2019, we are of the view that the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 313 of 2019 Page 2 of 3 Adjudicating Authority should have entertained the application under

Section 7 of the I&B Code.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, we set-aside the impugned order dated 12th

March, 2019 and remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority for passing

appropriate order after notice to the Corporate Debtor without going into

such technicality. It will be open to the Corporate Debtor to settle the matter

in the meantime.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

Ash/GC

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 313 of 2019 Page 3 of 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free