# In the matter of J. P. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indo Alusys Industries Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 220 of 2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-12-06. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00023. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 5th September, 2017, passed by the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Dec 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00023
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/j-p-engineers-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-alusys-industries-ltd-company-appeal-7319f22c

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 5th September, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, which rejected an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant, an 'Operational Creditor', had preferred the application, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The main ground for rejection was that the notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code was not issued by the 'Operational Creditor' or its authorized representative but by an advocate. The respondent, the 'Corporate Debtor', argued that the application was incomplete and defective due to the absence of a statutory affidavit and the existence of a dispute. The Adjudicating Authority also

…

## Facts

M/s. J.P. Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant and an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against M/s. Indo Alusys Industries Ltd., the Respondent and Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, rejected the application via an order dated 5th September, 2017, in Company Petition No.(IB)-203(ND)/2017. The primary reason for the rejection was that the notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code was issued by an advocate, Mr. Sharad Tyagi, on behalf of the Operational Creditor, rather than by the Operational Creditor itself or its authorized representative. The Respondent argued that the application was incomplete and defective due to the absence of a statutory

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the notice issued by an advocate on behalf of the Operational Creditor is a valid notice …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that the notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code must be issued by the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the I&B Code requires the notice to be given by the

…

**Interpretation:** Section 8 of the I&B Code is interpreted to mean that the demand notice

…

**Application:** In this case, the notice was issued by an advocate, Mr. Sharad Tyagi, who did

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; A.I.S. C…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** M/s. J.P.…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Indo Alusys…
- **Advocates:** Sanjeev Sin…; P. Na…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **2016-11-04 — Alleged Ta…**: M/s. J.P. Engineers allegedly taken over by…
- **2017-03-04 — Dispute N…**: Respondent-‘Corporate Debtor’disputed the claim via letter under Section 138 of the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 8 — Insolvency resolution by operational creditor](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-8)

---

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/j-p-engineers-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-alusys-industries-ltd-company-appeal-7319f22c