Page 467 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed Under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT Chandigarh Bench

Interim Resolution Professional at the relevant time_ Having notice of the aforesaid defects,

seven days' time was granted to the petitioner to rectify the same. For this, it would be relevant to

refer to sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Code, which reads as under:-

"(5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that-

(a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and
there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution
professional, if may, by order, admit such application; or
(b) default has not occurred or the application under subsection (2) is incomplete or any
disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it
may, by order, reject such application.

Pro vide d that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting the application under clause (b) of sub-
section (5), give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of
receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority."

10. The learned counsel for petitioner has stated that he received the copy of the order dated

24.07.2017 on 26.07.2017 and, therefore, even if the above contention is to be accepteeL the

seven days period would expire on 02.08,2017.

11. The mailer has been quite well settled by the Honble Appellate Tribunal in "Company Appeal

(AT) No.09 of 2017, JK Jute Mills Company Limited Vs. M/s Surendra Trading Company",

wherein it was held that the seven days' period for the rectification of the defects as stipulated

under the proviso to the relevant provisions of Sections 7, 8, or 9 is required to be complied with

by the Corporate Debtor, whose application otherwise being incomplete is fit to be rejected. It

was thus held that the proviso to the aforesaid section made to remove the defects within seven

days are mandatory and on failure to do so, the application is ft to be rejected,

12. however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Interim Insolvency Resolution

Professional could not be named because of non-availability of the Chief Executive Officer of the

petitioner Society for sometimes, but that cannot be the reason to grant extension in respect of the

period of seven days, the same being mandatory in nature.
In views of the above, the instant petition is rejected.

467