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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

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