Skip to main content

A mistake in a 'Demand Notice' does not necessarily mean that it is defective

Cause Title : Credberg Advisors India Private Limited vs Platinum Holdings Private Limited, CP(IB)/46 (CHE) /2022, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench

Date of Judgment/Order : 01.02.2023

Corum : Dr. Deepti Mukesh, Member (Judicial) & Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Ramesh Kymal Vs. M/s. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pt Ltd [ (2021) 3 SCC 224]
  2. Rajendra Bhai Panchal Vs. Jay Manak Steels and Ors [MANU/NL/0387/2020]

Background

An application under Section 9 of the the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the Applicant / Operational Creditor. The sole objection of the Respondent / Corporate Debtor was with respect to the maintainability of the present Application. It argued that case of the Operational Creditor with respect to the date of default as per the statutory notice in 'Form 3' read with the present Application in 'Form 5' is 27.11.2020, thus is clearly hit by the period covered under Section 10A of the Code and in support they referred to judgment in Ramesh (supra).

The Operational Creditor by way of an 'Additional Affidavit' dated 03.01.2023 submitted that the date (27.11.2020) as originally mentioned under the present Application was only a typographical error and due to sheer oversight on the part of the Operational Creditor and the correct date would be 24.02.2020.

Judgment

The NCLT while admitting the application and rejecting the objection of the Respondent referred to the judgment in Rajendra (supra) wherein it was decided that a mistake in a 'Demand Notice' does not necessarily mean that it is defective. If a 'Corporate Debtor' wants to question the validity of the demand it is for it to show that the prejudice was suffered by it as a result of defect. If there is a mistake in the demand but the creditor is clearly owed the statutory minimum figure or more, the fact that the debt is mis stated may not automatically invalidate the demand as per decision 'Cardiff Preserved Coal & Coke Co.' V. 'Norton 36 LJ Ch 451. Further, the Court will take into account whether any injustice was caused to the 'Debtor' and even a grossly overstated statutory demand may not automatically be set aside as per decision Re a Debtor (No 490 / SD / 1991), (1992) 2 All ER 664 (ChD).

Therefore, the Corporate Debtor has not and would not be prejudiced by fact that Operational Creditor has mentioned the wrong date of default due to its inadvertence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more