Application Dismissed: Failure to Serve Demand Notice. Importance of Procedural Compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application due to the non-service of the Demand Notice on the Corporate Debtor, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for initiating insolvency proceedings as mandated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The absence of proper service deprived the Corporate Debtor of the opportunity to dispute the claim within the specified timeframe, leading to the dismissal of the Application in accordance with Section 9(5)(ii) of the I&B Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Service of Demand Notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code, 2016 on the Corporate Debtor.
2. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.
3. Verification of service modes for the Demand Notice.
4. Identification of addressees for service of Demand Notice.
5. Filing of Affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of I&B Code, 2016.
6. Impact of non-service of Demand Notice on the Corporate Debtor's ability to dispute the claim.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal examined the issue of serving the Demand Notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code, 2016 on the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant's Counsel confirmed efforts were made to serve the notice at the registered office but it was returned undelivered. The Tribunal questioned if other modes of service were exhausted. An email communication was sent to complete the service, but discrepancies were found in the addressees listed, not aligning with the designated personnel as per the Rules.

2. The Tribunal considered compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. It highlighted the necessity of serving the Demand Notice as per Rule 5, emphasizing that without proper service, the Corporate Debtor cannot dispute the claim within the stipulated period, as mandated by Section 8 of the I&B Code, 2016. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., it emphasized that the absence of notice of demand deprives the Applicant of a cause of action until the expiration of the ten-day period.

3. The Tribunal delved into the verification of service modes for the Demand Notice. It scrutinized the Track Delivery Report showing non-delivery of the notice and the subsequent email communication attempting to serve the notice. However, discrepancies in the addressees raised concerns regarding the adequacy of service as per the Rules.

4. The issue of identifying addressees for the service of the Demand Notice was raised. Discrepancies between the names listed in the Company Master Data and the addressees in the email communication led to uncertainty about whether the notice reached the appropriate personnel as required by Rule 5(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

5. The Tribunal examined the filing of the Affidavit under Section 9(3)(b) of the I&B Code, 2016. The Applicant referred to the Affidavit filed with the Application, but it did not provide clarity on when the notice was issued and served on the Corporate Debtor, creating ambiguity regarding the mode of service used for the Demand Notice.

6. Lastly, the Tribunal discussed the impact of non-service of the Demand Notice on the Corporate Debtor's ability to dispute the claim. It highlighted that without proper service, the Corporate Debtor is unable to respond within the specified timeframe, as mandated by the I&B Code, 2016. Consequently, in line with Section 9(5)(ii) of the I&B Code, 2016, the Tribunal dismissed the Application due to the non-service of the Demand Notice, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for initiating insolvency proceedings.

---