MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED versus SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED versus SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is directory and not mandatory; a demand notice for unpaid operational debt under Section 8 may be delivered by a lawyer or authorized agent of the operational creditor. Applications under Section 9 cannot be dismissed solely for want of the certificate in Section 9(3)(c) or because notice was delivered by a lawyer.

Parties
Appellant: Macquarie Bank Limited; Respondent: Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From NCLAT Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed; NCLAT judgment set aside; matters remanded to NCLAT for further proceedings.
Legal Topics
Operational Debt, Section 9(3)(c) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Demand Notice Procedure, Advocates Act Section 30, Procedural Compliance, Mandatory Vs Directory Provisions
Insolvency Law Operational Debt Section 9(3)(c) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Demand Notice Procedure Advocates Act Section 30 Procedural Compliance Mandatory Vs Directory Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macquarie Bank Limited

Appellant

Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From NCLAT Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 mandatory or directory in respect of operational debts?
  2. 2 Can a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is directory and not mandatory; a demand notice for unpaid operational debt under Section 8 may be delivered by a lawyer or authorized agent of the operational creditor. Applications under Section 9 cannot be dismissed solely for want of the certificate in Section 9(3)(c) or because notice was delivered by a lawyer.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; NCLAT judgment set aside; matters remanded to NCLAT for further proceedings.

Orders

  • NCLAT to proceed further with the matters under the Code on remand.
  • Threshold bars removed regarding Section 9(3)(c) certificate and demand notice by lawyer.