# In the matter of Hyosan Automative India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Metecno (India) Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) No. 152-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-10-09. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00106. The appeal was preferred by the Appellant-'Corporate Debtor' against the order dated August…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Oct 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00106
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/hyosan-automative-india-pvt-ltd-vs-metecno-561877bd

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was preferred by the Appellant-'Corporate Debtor' against the order dated August 16, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, Chennai in TCP/232/(IB)/CB/2017. The Adjudicating Authority treated the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, admitted the application, initiated 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', passed prohibitory orders, and requested the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to recommend the name of 'Interim Resolution Professional'. The application was initially filed under Sections 433(e)(f), 433(i)(a), and 439(i)(b) of the Companies Act 1956.

## Facts

M/s. Hyosan Automative India Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench. The Adjudicating Authority had admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Appellant. The initial application was based on Sections 433(e)(f), 433(i)(a), and 439(i)(b) of the Companies Act 1956, related to transfer of pending proceedings. The Appellant argued that the application was incomplete and did not comply with the necessary rules and procedures under the I&B Code and the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016. The Respondent, Metecno (India) Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the parties had

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting an application under Section 9 of the …

**Ratio:** An application under Section 9 of the I&B Code must be complete and comply with all

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the application was incomplete and the Adjudicating Authority failed

…

**Interpretation:** Section 9 of the I&B Code and related rules are interpreted to require

…

**Application:** In this case, the application was found to be incomplete, and the Adjudicating

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; A.I.S. C…; +1 more
- **Respondents:** M/s. Hyosan…; Metecno (India)…
- **Advocates:** P. Je…; Nikh…

## Timeline

- **2017-08-16 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, passed an…
- **2017-10-09 — Appeal F…**: The Appellant-'Corporate Debtor' preferred an appeal against the order dated August 16,…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/hyosan-automative-india-pvt-ltd-vs-metecno-561877bd