In Brief
A non-resident foreign bank filed insolvency petitions against a corporate debtor for unpaid operational debt. The lower tribunals dismissed the applications on two grounds: (1) the demand notice was issued by a lawyer, not the bank itself; and (2) the bank failed to furnish a certificate from a "financial institution" as required by Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency Code. The Supreme Court held that Section 9(3)(c) is directory, not mandatory—a certificate serves as evidence but is not a threshold bar, especially where impossible to obtain (e.g., non-Indian banks). The Court also held that lawyers can issue demand notices on behalf of an operational creditor if duly authorized, as the Code and Rules contemplate "persons authorized to act" and Section 30 of the Advocates Act protects lawyers' right to practice. The appeals were allowed and remanded.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.