# In the matter of JAP Infratech Vs. Innovation House Industries Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) No. 242 & 245-20

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-12-05. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00027. The case involves an appeal against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 Dec 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00027
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/jap-infratech-vs-innovation-house-industries-pvt-ltd-ca-03a9a481

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, which admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by Innovation House Industries Pvt Ltd against JAP Infratech Private Limited, initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Adjudicating Authority also passed a moratorium order and requested the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to recommend an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The appeal was filed by the directors of JAP Infratech Private Ltd, challenging the maintainability of the Section 9 application.

## Facts

1. Innovation House Industries Pvt Ltd initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against JAP Infratech Private Limited by filing an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) admitted the application, declared a moratorium, and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
3. The directors of JAP Infratech Private Limited appealed against the Adjudicating Authority's orders.
4. The appellant argued that the demand notice issued under Section 8 of the IBC was issued by an advocate of 'Corporate Legal Partners' and not by an authorized representative of the operational creditor.
5. The respondent contended that the advocate was authorized to issue the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the demand notice issued by a law firm on behalf of an operational creditor is a valid …

**Ratio:** A demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC must be issued by the operational creditor or

…

**Reasoning:** The Appellate Tribunal reasoned that the provisions of the IBC Code and the Adjudicating

…

**Interpretation:** Section 8 of the IBC is interpreted to mean that the demand notice must come

…

**Application:** In this case, the demand notice was issued by 'Corporate Legal Partners', a law

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** JAP Infratech Pvt…
- **Respondents:** JAP Infratech…; Innovation House…
- **Advocates:** Chandra Shekhar…; Manish Pa…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2017-02-28 — Demand Noti…**: Demand notice issued under sub-section…
- **2017-02-13 — Board Resolut…**: Date of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Innovation House Industries…

## 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/jap-infratech-vs-innovation-house-industries-pvt-ltd-ca-03a9a481