2019-06-29_Corporate_Professional_Today

474

June 29 To July 5, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 62

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 without notice

to corporate debtor.

IRP could be dismissed when petiC -

tioner issued notice under MSMED

Act and not under Bankruptcy Code

Guru & Jena Chartered Accountants v. Ayur-

win Pharma (P.) Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.

com 75 (NCLT - Beng.)

In given case, the petitioner-Chartered Ac-

countant was registered under Micro - Small

and Medium Enterprises Development Act,

2006 (MSMED Act). The petitioner, based on

engagement letter entered into between the

petitioner and the respondent-corporate debtor

under head ‘Strictly Private and Confidential’,

provided services of OPE for internal Audit

of the respondent and pursuant to the same

the petitioner issued invoices against the

respondent.

On non-payment towards the same, the pe-

titioner issued legal notice to the respondent

under section 18 of the MSMED Act. Sub-

sequently, the petitioner filed instant CIRP

application under section 9 of the Insolven-

cy and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on ground

that the respondent had failed to pay the

outstanding amount, therefore, there was a

debt and default on part of the respondent.

The NCLT held since petitioner had not issued

demand notice prescribed under Code and

they had issued legal notice under provisions

of MSMED Act for redressal under provisions

of MSMED Act, petitioner had to pursue case

before MSMED Council to resolve it. Thus,

instant CIRP application was misconceived

and was liable to be dismissed

lll

WEEKLY REVIEW