AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Ld. Counsel Shri Praveen Jain for the Petitioner and Ld. Counsel Ms. V.S. Sravya for the Respondent present.
Arguments were already heard. However, Ld. Counsel for Financial Creditor states that he may be given further time to produce the proof of service of demand notice on the Personal Guarantor which has not been filed. It is admitted that the postal cover addressed to the Personal Guarantor returned unserved with an endorsement “addressee absent”.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for Personal Guarantor that before filing of this application, the mandatory demand notice was not served on the Personal Guarantor. In terms of section 95 IBC, before instituting, filing the application against the Personal Guarantor seeking Insolvency Resolution, a notice to the Personal Guarantor is mandatory. Under the circumstances this application cannot survive. Hence, it is dismissed, however, giving liberty to the Financial Creditor to file a fresh application as per law, after issuing the required notice.
Accordingly, this Company Petition is disposed of with no costs.