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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more