AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-V by which order the objection raised on behalf of the Corporate Debtor regarding authorisation of the affidavit by the Operational Creditor has been rejected and the Adjudicating Authority has directed the matter to be fixed on 08.09.2022 for arguments.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the present case, the affidavit which was in support of the Section 9 Application was sworn on 15.03.2021 and the application under Section 9 came to be filed on 18.08.2021. It is submitted that the affidavit could not be said to be a proper affidavit in compliance to Section 9(3)(b) of the I&B Code, hence, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have directed the Operational Creditor to cure defects and thereafter fix the matter for hearing on Section 9 application.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
Section 9 provides for filing of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by an Operational Creditor. Section 9 Sub-section (3) require the Operational Creditor to file certain materials alongwith the application. In the present case, we are concerned with Section 9(3)(b), which is to the following effect:
“9 (3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application furnish –
(b) an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt”
When we look into the provision of Section 9 (3) (b), an affidavit is required to be filed to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt. Affidavit is only on limited aspect as contained in Section 9 (3) (b). In the present case, affidavit has been sworn by the Operational Creditor at Switzerland on 15.03.2021 and thereafter affidavit was part of the Section 9 application, which was filed on 18.08.2021. The affidavit makes averments as contemplated in Section 9 (3) (b), which duly complies with the requirements as in Section 9 (3) (b). The mere fact that the affidavit was sworn at an earlier point of time and application was filed on 18.08.2021 does not make the affidavit incompetent to be looked into.
The learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the affidavit verifies the contents of the application as has been referred to in Para 2 of the General Affidavit Verification Petition. The verification of petition is a requirement which is to be read alongwith Section 9(2) of I&B Code read with NCLT Rules, 2016 as well as the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016. Verification of affidavit is for entirely different purpose. More so, the Adjudicating Authority has already fixed the matter on 08.09.2022 for hearing arguments on Section 9 application. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the allegations in the affidavit are incorrect. These are the questions which may be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of hearing of the application. We are of the view that the objection raised by the Appellant regarding the affidavit has rightly been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. We see no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.