# in the matter of Seema Gupta Vs Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. & Ors. CA (AT) No. 53-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-05-25. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00172. The appeal was filed by Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, against an order…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 25 May 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00172
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/seema-gupta-vs-supreme-infrastructure-india-ltd-ors-ca-d343a172

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, against an order dated March 10, 2017, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench. The NCLT rejected the appellant's application for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant argued that the application under Section 9 should not be rejected based on technicalities, as an earlier notice was issued under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which provided for a 21-day statutory period, as opposed to the 10-day notice period under Section 8 of the I&B Code.

## Facts

Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, filed an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, dated March 10, 2017, which rejected her application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant argued that the rejection based on the technicality of not issuing a notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code was incorrect, as a prior notice had been issued under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. This earlier notice provided for a 21-day statutory period, while Section 8 of the I&B Code requires a 10-day notice period. The NCLT rejected the application because the mandatory notice under Section 8 of

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a prior notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is mandatory …

**Ratio:** A prior notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code is mandatory before initiating an

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the I&B Code clearly stipulates the requirement of a notice

…

**Interpretation:** Section 8 of the I&B Code is interpreted as a mandatory provision that

…

**Application:** In this case, since the appellant did not issue a notice under Section 8 of the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Balvinder…
- **Appellants:** Seema G…
- **Respondents:** Supreme Infrastruc…
- **Advocates:** P. Na…; Ashutosh…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2017-03-10 — NCLT Ord…**: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench passed an order rejecting the…
- **2017-05-03 — Era Infra Engineering…**: Appellate Tribunal vide judgement dated 3rd May, 2017 considered a similar question in…

## 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/seema-gupta-vs-supreme-infrastructure-india-ltd-ors-ca-d343a172