# In the matter of Senthil Kumar Karmegam Vs. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CA (AT) No. 154-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-11-02. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00085. The appellant, Director of Corporate Debtor, filed an appeal under Section 61 of the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 Nov 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00085
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/senthil-kumar-karmegam-vs-dolphin-offshore-enterprises-af1e4784

## Summary

### Background

The appellant, Director of Corporate Debtor, filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against an order dated June 20, 2017, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench. The Adjudicating Authority had admitted an application by the respondent, Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd., for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, declared a moratorium, and requested the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India to recommend an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The appellant challenged the admission of the application, arguing that the demand notice under Section 8(1) was not issued by the Operational Creditor but by an advocate on their behalf, and that the Bank

…

## Facts

Mr. Senthil Kumar Karmegam, Director of the Corporate Debtor, appealed against the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) filed by Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd., the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority had initiated CIRP based on a demand notice issued by an advocate on behalf of the Operational Creditor. The appellant argued that the demand notice was not issued by the Operational Creditor itself, as required by Section 8 of the I&B Code and related rules. The appellant also contended that the Bank Certificate attached to the application was not in compliance with Section 9(3)(c) of the I&B Code. Notices were issued to the respondents, including the Corporate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a demand notice issued by an advocate on behalf of the Operational Creditor, without …

**Ratio:** An Operational Creditor must issue the demand notice himself or through a person

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the I&B Code and related rules require the demand notice to

…

**Interpretation:** Section 8 of the I&B Code, read with Rule 5 of the Adjudicating Authority

…

**Application:** In this case, the demand notice was issued by an advocate who did not hold any

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Senthil Kumar…
- **Respondents:** Dolphin Offshore…

## Timeline

- **2017-11-02 — Appeal F…**: The appellant, Director of Corporate Debtor, preferred an appeal under Section 61 of the…
- **2017-06-20 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, passed an order…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/senthil-kumar-karmegam-vs-dolphin-offshore-enterprises-af1e4784