Mandatory demand notice before insolvency proceedings: admission without valid service and debtor notice was unsustainable.

Service of the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a mandatory precondition to a valid Section 9 application; where the notice was returned unserved for insufficient address, the operational creditor had no basis to invoke insolvency, and the application was not maintainable. Admission of the application without notice from the Adjudicating Authority was also unsustainable because notice had to be issued to the corporate debtor in accordance with the NCLT Rules, 2016 and Section 424(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The admission order, moratorium, appointment of the resolution professional, and consequential insolvency ions were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in the absence of service of demand notice under Section 8(1); (ii) Whether admission of the application without notice by the Adjudicating Authority was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in the absence of service of demand notice under Section 8(1).

Analysis: Service of the demand notice under Section 8(1) is a mandatory statutory requirement and not a mere formality. The right of an operational creditor to invoke Section 9 arises only after service of notice and expiry of the prescribed period without payment. On the record, the notice was returned unserved with the remark that the address was insufficient, and there was thus no valid service on the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether admission of the application without notice by the Adjudicating Authority was sustainable.

Analysis: Before admitting the application, the Adjudicating Authority was required to issue notice to the corporate debtor. A notice purportedly served through the operational creditor did not amount to a notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority. Such a direction was inconsistent with the NCLT Rules, 2016 and the requirement of notice under Section 424(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 as applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The admission order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency admission order, the moratorium, appointment of the resolution professional, and consequential actions were set aside, and the corporate debtor was released from the insolvency process.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a mandatory precondition to a valid Section 9 proceeding, and an admission order passed without valid service of such notice and without notice to the corporate debtor is unsustainable.

---