Sandip Keshavlal Patel vs Jugal Hansal Brothers Through Its ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A misdescription of the applicant in the petition or in the Adjudicating Authority's cause title does not vitiate the proceedings where the error is not one that renders the proceeding itself defective. A demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not rendered invalid merely because it does not follow a prescribed format, where it clearly identifies the invoice, the amount due and the date, so that the operational debt is sufficiently stated.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sandip Keshavlal Patel ...Appellant
Versus
Jugal Hansal Brothers & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, Advocate.
For Respondents:
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
31.03.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Special Bench,
Court-1 on the application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9.
The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has admitted the same.
The Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the order has
come up in this Appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has raised two submissions. Firstly,
he submitted that Applicant has been described in the Memo of Appeal
differently than in the Petition, therefore the application/petition was not
maintainable. It is submitted that the applicant is a proprietorship firm but
in in the order (pages 21 and 22) they have been differently described.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. We have perused the order dated 16.03.2022. In the aforementioned
order dated 16.03.2022 in the array of parties, the Applicant has been
mentioned as 'M/s Jugal Hansal Brothers through authorized signatory'. We
don not find any such error in the description which can render entire
proceeding as vitiated.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that notice under Section 8,
which was issued by the Operational Creditor was not in the prescribed
format, hence, the application filed on basis of such notice is not maintainable.
5. We have perused notice dated 09.11.2019 at page 68 of the Appeal paper
book. Subject of the notice mentions 'Demand Notice under Section 8 of
Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Further, in Para 2 of the notice
following details are mentioned:
Sr. No. Invoice No. Amount Date
1. SAC/18 1,23,19,200/- 30/11/2017
Total amount due and remaining.
In words: Rupees Nineteen Lacs Rs.19,55,342/- Fifty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Two Only.
6. The Invoice Number and amount having clearly mentioned and other
details being also stated in the notice, we do not find that the notice suffers
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of 2022 3
from any error. Notice being not in format cannot vitiate entire case of the
Operational Creditor, details of amount having being mentioned in it.
7. We do not find any merit in any of the submissions of the Appellant.
The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of 2022
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