AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
13.10.2026 This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi Bench, Court-IV in C.P. (IB) No. 250/ND/2025 wherein a petition filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 was dismissed on the ground the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016 was not served upon the Respondent and secondly, there exist contradiction in the amount mentioned in the demand notice as well as the Part-IV of the petition. The following paragraphs of the impugned order are relevant in this context:
“8.The issue for consideration is whether the present petition satisfies the mandatory preconditions under Section 9 of the IBC specifically valid service of the statutory demand notice under section 8 and the discrepancy in the amount of debt claimed.
13.Thus, in the present case, the Applicant relied upon the email which appears to be an internal communication of the Applicant itself and not addressed to any officer of the Corporate Debtor. Hence statutory service has not been proved.
16.In the present case, the Applicant has merely shown dispatch of the notice by post but failed to demonstrate its delivery. There is acknowledgement or email confirmation from any Key Managerial Personnel or Director. Hence, this Tribunal holds that issuance of the notice alone is not sufficient, service is the sine qua non for valid commencement of proceedings under Section 9 of the Code. 17. The other issue is for consideration is discrepancy in the amount of debt claimed. In the present case, the Section 8 demand notice demands a sum of Rs. 1,66,22,463.95/- whereas the Part-IV of the petition claims Rs. 1,70,98,976/- a variance of about Rs. 4.76 lakhs. The Operational Creditor attributes the difference to further interest computation, but no supporting computation sheet or clause specifying the rate and basis of interest has been annexed with the notice. 18. The object of Section 8 is to give the Corporate Debtor a clear, precise opportunity to either pay the exact amount claimed or to raise a dispute. When the petition demands a higher sum than that mentioned in the notice, it ceases to relate to the same operational debt.
21.Upon careful consideration, this Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed to establish proper service of the mandatory section 8 demand notice in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules and there exists a substantive inconsistency between the amount claimed in the demand notice and the petition, coupled with inclusion of unsubstantiated interest. This bench is conscious that the Code is a beneficial legislation intended for resolution of genuine insolvency, not for recovery of disputed or procedural defective claims. Compliance with Section 8 is mandatory, not directory. In absence of conclusive proof of service and with a discrepancy in quantum of debt, this petition cannot be admitted.”
It is the submissions of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant the demand notice was duly sent on the registered email at registered office of the Corporate Debtor/Respondent and he referred to the proof of service which is annexed as Annexure A-9 (at page 339 of the Appeal Paper Book) wherein demand notice was sent by email on the following addresses:
It is submitted by Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Gautam and Mr. Sidharth are the directors of the Corporate Debtor/Respondent and the notice sent by email was duly served at the email ID- [email protected], a registered email id of the Respondent company as is shown in the MCA record annexed at Annexure A-2 along with the appeal.
It appears this aspect has not been examined by the Ld. NCLT which shows the service of notice was not only affected on the registered email id of the Respondent company but also on its Key Managerial Person. On record, there is also a resolution in favour of Mr. Sidharth Singhal who has even filed an affidavit in the course of proceedings before the Ld. NCLT and hence it cannot be said Mr. Sidharth is not a Key Managerial Personnel or the notice was never delivered upon the Corporate Debtor in compliance of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016. Further, we are also not convinced with the reasoning given qua discrepancies in the amounts shown in the demand notice as well as Part-IV, as the argument is the amount of Rs. 4.76 lakhs is the interest amount claimed on the payment due. In any case, the threshold for filing a petition under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 is Rs. 1 crore and as such the discrepancies, if any, in the amount above Rs. 1 crore would not matter at the stage of admission.
At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent also raised an objection qua the demand notice being not in the prescribed format as specified in Form-3 and Form-4 of the Rules and he took this objection before the Ld. NCLT, but was not dwelled upon by the authority.
Considering the submissions made, we set aside the findings of the impugned order qua the service of the demand notice or on the discrepancies in the amounts shown (supra) and remand the matter before the Ld. NCLT to decide on merits as per law and as expeditiously as possible. The contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent qua prescribed format, etc. are kept open. The appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) viz. I.A. No. 7821, 7822 and 7823 of 2025 are also closed.