Demand notice service at the corporate office was sufficient, defeating the objection based on non-service at the registered office.

Service of a demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as valid when delivered at the corporate office, not only the registered office, for purposes of a section 9 application. The Tribunal noted the contrary objection that non-service at the registered office rendered the application defective, but followed the later appellate view that service at either office is sufficient. On that basis, receipt of the notice and response by the corporate debtor supported valid service, and the maintainability objection based on place of service was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice under section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 served at the corporate office, and not at the registered office, is valid service for the purpose of maintaining an application under section 9 of the Code.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted the contention that notice under section 8 should be served only at the registered office and that non-service at such office rendered the section 9 application liable to dismissal. It also considered the contrary position that the corporate debtor had in fact received the notice at its corporate office and had replied to it, and that a later decision of the appellate tribunal had held service at either the registered office or the corporate office to be sufficient. In light of that binding appellate view, service of the demand notice was treated as valid when effected at the corporate office.

Conclusion: Service of the demand notice at the corporate office was held to be sufficient, and the objection to maintainability on the ground of non-service at the registered office was rejected.

---