Paresh Rastogi Vs Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice issued u/s. 95(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] when sent to last known address as stipulated in Guarantee Deed is valid service of notice under established legal principles. Accordingly, appeals dismissed.
Facts- Vide the present appeal it is mainly contended that the Adjudicating Authority erroneously issued the Impugned Order on 19.09.2024 without considering settled legal principles and in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 957 of the Code. This includes improper service of the demand notice on the Appellant and an inaccurate report filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) u/s. 99 of the Code, read with Rule 7 (1)5 of IRPPG Rules6. The Appellant contends that the Impugned Order was issued without due consideration of established legal principles and in violation of Section 95 of the Code. Specifically, the demand notice was not properly served on the Appellant, as required u/s. 95(4)(b)7 of the Code, read with Rule 7(1) of the IRPPG Rules. The Respondent has failed to provide any documentary evidence proving that the alleged demand notice was ever served upon the Appellant. In the absence of such proof, the Petition is not maintainable, as it does not satisfy the fundamental requirement of Section 95(4)(b) of the IBC, which mandates the issuance of a demand notice in Form B.
