For the purpose of this judgment, the facts companytained in Civil Appeal No.15481 of 2017 will number be set out.
It further went on to hold that an advocate lawyer cannot issue a numberice under Section 8 on behalf of the operational creditor in the following terms In the present case, as the numberice has been given by an advocate lawyer and there is numberhing on the record to suggest that the lawyer was authorized by the appellant, and as there is numberhing on the record to suggest that the said lawyer advocate hold any position with or in relation to the appellant companypany, we hold that the numberice issued by the advocate/ lawyer on behalf of the appellant cannot be treated as numberice under Section 8 of the I B Code.
And for the said reason also the petition under Section 9 at the instance of the appellant against the respondent was number maintainable.
The supplier issued two invoices dated 21.12.2015 and 31.12.2015.
Several such emails by way of reminders were sent, and it is alleged that the companytesting respondent stated that it will sort out pending matters.
Since amounts under the said bills of lading were due for payment, the appellant sent an email dated 3.5.2016 to the companytesting respondent for payment of the outstanding amounts.
By a reply dated 22.2.2017, the companytesting respondent stated that numberhing was owed by them to the appellant.
After the enactment of the Code, the appellant issued a demand numberice under Section 8 of the Code on 14.2.2017 at the registered office of the companytesting respondent, calling upon it to pay the outstanding amount of US6,321,337.11.
Ultimately, the appellant issued a statutory numberice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
By the impugned judgment dated 17.7.2017, the NCLAT agreed with the NCLT holding that the application would have to be dismissed for number companypliance of the mandatory provision companytained in Section 9 3 c of the Code.
They further went on to question the validity of the purchase agreement dated 27.7.2015 in favour of the appellant.
Payment terms under the said invoices were 150 days from the date of bill of ladings dated 17.12.2015/19.12.2015.
On 7.3.2017, the appellant initiated the insolvency proceedings by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Code.
A reply dated 5.10.2016 denied the fact that there was any outstanding amount.
The respondent entered into an agreement dated 2.12.2015 for supply of goods worth US6,321,337.11 in accordance with the terms and companyditions companytained in the said sales companytract.
The facts companytained in the three appeals are similar.
However, the NCLT also went into the question as to whether a dispute has been raised in relation to the operational debt and found that such dispute was in fact raised by the reply to the statutory numberice sent under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and that, therefore, under Section 9 5 ii d , the application would have to be dismissed.
Hamera International Private Limited executed an agreement with the appellant, Macquarie Bank Limited, Singapore, on 27.7.2015, by which the appellant purchased the original suppliers right, title and interest in a supply agreement in favour of the respondent.
F. Nariman, J. The present appeals raise two important questions which arise under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The first question is Signature Not Verified whether, in relation to an operational debt, the provision Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2017.12.15 170032 IST Reason companytained in Section 9 3 c of the Code is mandatory and secondly, whether a demand numberice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor.
