M NANDAGOPAL Vs. VIRTUOUS URJA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Virtuous Urja Limited ('Operational Creditor') filed a petition under Sections 433(e) & (f), 434(i)(a) and 439(i)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against Nandha Energy Limited ('Corporate Debtor'). The said case was transferred before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, pursuant to Rule 5 of "the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016". The Adjudicating Authority treated the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I & B Code') and by impugned order dated 29th August, 2017 admitted the appeal, passed order of 'Moratorium' and appointed 'Insolvency Resolution Professional' with certain observations and directions.

(2.) The Appellant Mr. M. Nandagopal, Managing Director of 'Corporate Debtor' has preferred these appeals against the aforesaid orders dated 31st July, 2017 and 29th August, 2017 on the ground that provisions of Rule 5 have not been followed, as no demand notice under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the 'I & B Code' was issued, nor relevant information in terms of Part IV of Form 5 were provided by the 'Financial Creditor' (Respondent herein). Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in "M/s. Sabari Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Rameesh Associates Pvt. Ltd.--Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 117 of 2017" and "Mosmetrostroy (FZE) Vs. BASF India Ltd. & Anr.--Company Appeals (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 229 & 230 of 2017".

(3.) Similar issue fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in "M/s. Sabari Inn Pvt. Ltd. ", wherein this Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated 17th November, 2017, noticed Rule 5 and held as follows: