Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 05 NCLT CK 0831

Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Ltd vs Smt. Kadiyala Suneetha

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 25 May 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula, Member (Judicial) · Sh. Charan Singh, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
CP (IB) No. 199/95/HDB/2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 154 words

O R D E R

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 “door locked”.

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.