Tribunal validates notice service via speed post but dismisses petition due to pre-existing dispute

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the validity of the statutory demand notice service, holding that sending the notice through speed post to the registered address constituted valid delivery. However, the petition was dismissed due to the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties, as evidenced by warning and legal notices, indicating breach of contract and substandard supplies. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of resolving disputes before initiating insolvency proceedings and the necessity of clear evidence of debt and liability.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of statutory demand notice service on the respondent-corporate debtor.
2. Proof of existence of an enforceable debt and liability to pay by the corporate debtor.

Issue 1: Validity of statutory demand notice service:
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Process against the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was alleged to have failed to make payments due to the Operational Creditor for equipment supplied. The Operational Creditor claimed an amount of Rs. 134.72 lakhs, including interest, as unpaid operational debt. The Corporate Debtor contended that the demand notice was not validly served, as evidenced by tracking reports, and challenged the alleged hand delivery. However, the Tribunal held that sending the demand notice through speed post to the registered address, even if unclaimed, constituted valid delivery as per legal principles, ruling in favor of the petitioner on this issue.

Issue 2: Proof of an enforceable debt and liability to pay:
The next issue revolved around whether the petitioner had proved the existence of an enforceable debt and the liability of the Corporate Debtor to pay. While the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the transactions, it highlighted a pre-existing dispute evidenced by warning and legal notices. The petitioner argued that the warning notice was responded to, negating the existence of a dispute. The Tribunal noted serious allegations in the warning notice, indicating breach of contract and substandard supplies. As the disputes were not settled before or after the demand notice, the Tribunal concluded that a pre-existing dispute existed, leading to the dismissal of the Corporate Petition. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of the validity of the statutory demand notice service and the proof of an enforceable debt and liability to pay by the Corporate Debtor. The judgment highlighted the importance of resolving disputes before initiating insolvency proceedings and emphasized the need for clear evidence of debt and liability. The dismissal of the petition underscored the significance of addressing disputes promptly to avoid unnecessary legal actions.

---