Case: Macquarie Bank Ltd Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd

sent on behalf of an operational creditor by a lawyer would be in order. 37. However, Dr. Singhvi referred to Rule 4 of the Debts Recovery Rules and Section 434(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, which state as follows: "4. Procedure for filing applications.-(1) The application under section 19 or section 31A, or under section 30(1) of the Act may be presented as nearly as possible in Form-I, Form-II and Form-III respectively annexed to these rules by the applicant in person or by his agent or by a duly authorised legal practitioner to the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction his case falls or shall be sent by registered post addressed to the Registrar.(2) An application sent by post under sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to have been presented to the Registrar the day on which it was received in the office of the Registrar.(3) The application under sub-rule (1) shall be presented in two sets, in a paper book along with an empty file size envelope bearing full address of the defendant and where the number of defendants is more than one, then sufficient number of extra paper-books together with empty file size envelopes bearing full address of each of the defendant shall be furnished by the applicant.xxx xxx xxx434. COMPANY WHEN DEEMED UNABLE TO PAY ITS DEBTS-(2) The demand referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been duly given under the hand of the creditor if it is signed by any agent or legal adviser duly authorised on his behalf, or in the case of a firm, if it is signed by any such agent or legal adviser or by any member of the firm."The argument then made was that when Parliament wishes to include a lawyer for the purposes of litigation or to a pre-litigation stage, it expressly so provides, and this not being so in the Code, it must be inferred that lawyers are excluded when it comes to issuing notices under Section 8 of the Code. We are afraid that this argument must be rejected, not only in view of what has been held by us on a reading of the Code and on the harmonious construction of Section 30 of the Advocates Act read with the Code, but also on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, (1992) 1 SCC 31 at 47-48. In this judgment, what fell for consideration was Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after its amendment in 1976. It was argued in that case that a compromise in a suit had, under Order XXIII Rule 3, to be in writing and "signed by the parties". It was, therefore, argued that a compromise effected by counsel on behalf of his client would not be effective in law, unless the party himself signed the compromise. This was turned down stating that Courts in India have consistently recognized the traditional role of lawyers and the extent and nature of the implied authority to act on behalf of their clients, which included compromising matters on behalf of their clients. The Court held there is no reason to assume that the legislature intended to curtail such implied authority of counsel. It then went on to hold:"38. Considering the traditionally recognised role of counsel in the common law system, and the evil sought to be remedied by Parliament by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, namely, attainment of certainty and expeditious disposal of cases by reducing the terms of compromise to writing signed by the parties, and allowing the compromise decree to comprehend even matters falling outside the subject matter of the suit, but relating to the parties, the legislature cannot, in the absence of express words to such effect, be presumed to have disallowed the parties to enter into a compromise by counsel in their cause or by their duly authorised agents. Any such presumption would be inconsistent with the legislative object of attaining quick reduction of arrears in court by elimination of uncertainties and enlargement of the scope of compromise.39. To insist upon the party himself personally signing the agreement or compromise would often cause undue delay, loss and inconvenience, especially in the case of non-resident persons. It has always been universally understood that a party can always act by his duly authorised representative. If a power-of-attorney holder can enter into an agreement or compromise on behalf of his principal, so can counsel, possessed of the requisite authorisation by vakalatnama, act on behalf of his client. Not to recognise such capacity is not only to cause much inconvenience and loss to the parties personally, but also to delay the progress of proceedings in court. If the legislature had intended to make such a fundamental change, even at the risk of delay, inconvenience and needless expenditure, it would have expressly so stated.40. Accordingly, we are of the view that the words in writing and signed by the parties, inserted by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, must necessarily mean, to borrow the language of Order III Rule 1 CPC:"any appearance, application or act in or to any court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such court, may except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader, appearing, applying or acting as the case may be, on his behalf:Provided that any such appearance shall, if the court so directs, be made by the party in person." 38. Just as has been held in Gariwala (supra), the expression "an operational creditor may on the occurrence of a default deliver a demand notice....." under Section 8 of the Code must be read as including an operational creditors authorized agent and lawyer, as has been fleshed out in Forms 3 and 5 appended to the Adjudicatory Authority Rules.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. The first thing to be noticed on a conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, as explained in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 decided on 21.9.2017, at paragraphs 33 to 36, is that Section 9(1) contains the conditions precedent for triggering the Code insofar as an operational creditor is concerned.It is only when these conditions are met that an application may then be filed under Section 9(2) of the Code in the prescribed manner, accompanied with such fee as has been prescribed. Under Section 9(3), what is clear is that, along with the application, certain other information is also to beunder Section 9(3)(a), a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor is to be furnished. We may only indicate that under Rules 5 and 6 of the Adjudicating Authority Rules, read with Forms 3 and 5, it is clear that, as Annexure I thereto, the application in any case must have a copy of the invoice/demand notice attached to the application. That this is a mandatory condition precedent to the filing of an application is clear from a conjoint reading of sections 8 and 9(1) of the Code.13. When we come to Section 9(3)(b), it is obvious that an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt can only be in a situation where the corporate debtor has not, within the period of 10 days, sent the requisite notice by way of reply to the operational creditor. In a case where such notice has, in fact, been sent in reply by the corporate debtor, obviously an affidavit to that effect cannot be given.14. When we come to(c) of Section 9(3), it is equally clear that a copy of the certificate from the financial institution maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor is certainly not a condition precedent to triggering the insolvency process under the Code. The expression "confirming" makes it clear that this is only a piece of evidence, albeit a very important piece of evidence, which only "confirms" that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt. This becomes clearer when we go to(d) of Section 9(3) which requires such other information as may be specified has also to be furnished along with the application.15. When Form 5 under Rule 6 is perused, it becomes clear that Part V thereof speaks of particulars of the operational debt. There are 8 entries in Part V dealing with documents, records and evidence of default. Item 7 of Part V is only one of such documents and has to be read along with Item 8, which speaks of other documents in order to prove the existence of an operational debt and the amount in default. Further, annexure III in the Form also speaks of copies of relevant accounts kept by banks/financial institutions maintaining accounts of the operational creditor, confirming that there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, only "if available".This would show that such accounts are not ato trigger the Code, and that if such accounts are not available, a certificate based on such accounts cannot be given, if Section 9 is to be read the Adjudicating Authority Rules and the Forms therein, all of which set out the statutory conditions necessary to invoke thethe present case, the rules merely flesh out what is already contained in the statute and must, therefore, be construed along with the statute. Read with the Code, they form acode being contemporanea expositio by the Executive which is charged with carrying out the provisions of the Code. The true construction of Section 9(3)(c) is that it is a procedural provision, which is directory in nature, as the Adjudicatory Authority Rules read with the Code clearly demonstrate.17. There may be situations of operational creditors who may have dealings with a financial institution as defined in Section 3(14) of the Code. There may also be situations where an operational creditor may have as his banker abank, for example, in which case, it would be impossible for him to fulfill the aforesaid condition. A foreign supplier or assignee of such supplier may have a foreign banker who is not within Section 3(14) of the Code.The fact that such foreign supplier is an operational creditor is established from a reading of the definition of "person" contained in section 3(23), as including persons resident outside India, together with the definition of "operational creditor" contained in Section 5(20), which in turn is defined as "a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred". That such person may have a bank/financial institution with whom it deals and which is not contained within the definition of Section 3(14) of the Code would show that Section 9(3)(c) in such a case would, if Dr. Singhvi is right about thebeing a condition precedent, amount to a threshold bar to proceeding further under the Code.The Code cannot be construed in a discriminatory fashion so as to include only those operational creditors who are residents outside India who happen to bank with financial institutions which may be included under Section 3(14) of the Code. It is no answer to state that such person can approach the Central Government to include its foreign banker under Section 3(14) of the Code, for the Central Government may never do so. Equally, Dr. Singhvis other argument that such persons ought to be left out of the triggering of the Code against their corporate debtor, despite being operational creditors as defined, would not sound well with Article 14 of the Constitution, which applies to all persons including foreigners. Therefore, as the facts of these cases show, a so called condition precedent impossible of compliance cannot be put as a threshold bar to the processing of an application under Section 9 of the Code.18. However, it was argued that there are various other categories of creditors who cannot file insolvency petitions, such as government authorities who have pending tax dues. Such authorities have ample powers under taxation statutes to coercively collect outstanding tax arrears. Besides they form a class, as a whole, who are kept out of the Code, unlike persons who are resident outside India who, though being operational creditors, are artificially divided, if we are to accept Dr. Singhvis argument, into twonamely, those who bank with an institution that is recognized by Section 3(14) of the Code and those who do not. This argument also does not commend itself to us.19. It is true that the expression "initiation" contained in the marginal note to Section 9 does indicate the drift of the provision, but from such drift, to build an argument that the expression "initiation" would lead to the conclusion that Section 9(3) contains mandatory conditions precedent before which the Code can be triggered is a long shot. Equally, the expression "shall" in Section 9(3) does not take us much further when it is clear that Section 9(3)(c) becomes impossible of compliance in cases like the present. It would amount to a situation wherein serious general inconvenience would be caused to innocent persons, such as the appellant, without very much furthering the object of the Act, as has been held in the State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal (1995) 1 SCC 133  at paragraph 5 and obviously, therefore, Section 9(3)(c) would have to be construed as being directory in nature.20. Even otherwise, the important condition precedent is an occurrence of a default, which can be proved, as has been stated hereinabove, by means of other documentary evidence. Take for example the case of an earlier letter written by the corporate debtor to the operational creditor confirming that a particular operational debt is due and payable. This piece of evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate that such debt is due and that default has taken place, as may have been admitted by the corporate debtor. If Dr. Singhvis submissions were to be accepted, despite the availability of such documentary evidence contained in the Section 9 application as other information as may be specified, such application filed under Section 9 would yet have to be rejected because there is no copy of the requisite certificate under Section 9(3)(c). Obviously, such an absurd result militates against such a provision being construed as mandatory.21. It is unnecessary to further refer to arguments made on the footing that Section 7 qua financial creditors has a process which is different from that of operational creditors under Sections 8 and 9 of the Code. The fact that there is no requirement of a bank certificate under Section 7 of the Code, as compared to Section 9, does not take us very much further.It was also submitted that Sections 65 and 76 of the Code provide for criminal prosecution against banks issuing false bank certificates and that a foreign bank issuing such a certificate may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Code. It is unnecessary to answer this submission in view of the fact that the necessity for such a certificate has itself been held by this judgment to be directory in nature.23. Equally, Dr. Singhvis argument that the Code leads to very drastic action being taken once an application for insolvency is filed and admitted and that, therefore, all conditions precedent must be strictly construed is also not in sync with the recent trend ofit is clear that for the reasons stated by us above, a fair construction of Section 9(3)(c), in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Code, would lead to the conclusion that it cannot be construed as a threshold bar or a condition precedent as has been contended by Dr. Singhvi.25. Dr. Singhvi then argued that the application of the principle in Taylor (supra) should be followed when it comes to the correct interpretation of Section 9(3)(c) of thethat case, the Privy Council held that Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 prescribed the mode in which confessions are to be recorded by Magistrates, when made during investigation, and a confession before a Magistrate not recorded in the manner provided was inadmissible.This judgment applies on all fours to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, like Section 129A(8) of the aforesaid Act, proof of the existence of a debt and a default in relation to such debt can be proved by other documentary evidence, as is specifically contemplated by Section 9(3)(d) of the Code. Like Section 66(2) of the aforesaid Act in Ukha Kolhe (supra), Section 8 of the Code does not prescribe any particular method of proof of occurrence of default. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the principle contained in Taylor (supra) does not apply in the present situation.Insofar as the second point is concerned, the first thing that is to be noticed is that Section 8 of the Code speaks of an operational creditor delivering a demand notice. It is clear that had the legislature wished to restrict such demand notice being sent by the operational creditor himself, the expression used would perhaps have been "issued" and not "delivered". Delivery, therefore, would postulate that such notice could be made by an authorized agent. In fact, in Forms 3 and 5 extracted hereinabove, it is clear that this is the understanding of the draftsman of the Adjudicatory Authority Rules, because the signature of the person "authorized to act" on behalf of the operational creditor must be appended to both the demand notice as well as the application under Section 9 of the Code. The position further becomes clear that both forms require such authorized agent to state his position with or in relation to the operational creditor. A position with the operational creditor would perhaps be a position in the company or firm of the operational creditor, but the expression "in relation to" is significant. It is a very wide expression, as has been held in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., (1984) 4 SCC 679  at 704 and State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders (P) Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 524  at 535, which specifically includes a position which is outside or indirectly related to the operational creditor. It is clear, therefore, that both the expression "authorized to act" and "position in relation to the operational creditor" go to show that an authorized agent or a 59 lawyer acting on behalf of his client is included within the aforesaid expression.te clause contained in Section 238 of the Code will not override the Advocates Act as there is no inconsistency between Section 9, read with the Adjudicating Authority Rules and Forms referred to hereinabove, and the Advocatesthere is no clear disharmony between the two Parliamentary statutes in the present case which cannot be resolved by harmonious interpretation, it is clear that both statutes must be read together. Also, we must not forget that Section 30 of the Advocates Act deals with the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practice ones profession. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Section 30 of the Advocates Act and Sections 8 and 9 of the Code together with the Adjudicatory Authority Rules and Forms thereunder would yield the result that a notice sent on behalf of an operational creditor by a lawyer would be in order.Just as has been held in Gariwala (supra), the expression "an operational creditor may on the occurrence of a default deliver a demand notice....." under Section 8 of the Code must be read as including an operational creditors authorized agent and lawyer, as has been fleshed out in Forms 3 and 5 appended to the Adjudicatory Authority Rules.