State Bank of India Through Resolution Professional Shri Chillale Rajesh Vs Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti (NCLAT Chennai)
NCLAT Chennai held that demand notice has been duly served on the personal guarantors and hence proceedings under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be said to be vitiated. Accordingly, order quashed and proceedings remanded back.
Facts- The present company appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, being aggrieved as against the order dated 22.07.2024, which has been passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The consequential effect of the impugned order under challenge has been, that, the application preferred by the appellant, State bank of India (the financial creditor) under Section 95 of I & B Code as against the respondent, Dr Jitendra Das Maganti has been rejected.
Conclusion- Held that the presumption would be that, the notice of demand / default under clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 95 of I & B Code, 2016, has been admittedly served upon the Respondents. Hence, the proceedings under Section 95 of I & B Code, 2016, cannot be said to have been vitiated in any manner on the grounds that, notice of demand was not served, because in the finding recorded by us, we have concluded that, the demand notice was served upon the Respondents in accordance with their own case. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and the proceedings are remanded back to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, to be proceeded further in accordance with law and to be decided on merits. All pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, would stand closed.
