Tribunal rules on demand notice validity and dismisses petition due to lack of debt proof

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the validity of the demand notice, holding that service at the Corporate Office address or any operational address sufficed. However, the petitioner failed to establish the debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor, resulting in the dismissal of the petition (CP (IB) No. 9/Chd/Hry/2019).

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the statutory demand notice.
2. Proof of debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the statutory demand notice:
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent-corporate debtor. The petitioner claimed that the demand notice was duly delivered to the Corporate Office address and Okhla address, even though it was not served at the registered office address. The respondent argued that since the notice was not served at the registered office, it was not valid. The Tribunal held that service at the Corporate Office address or any other operational address of the corporate debtor is deemed valid. Therefore, the issue of the validity of the demand notice was decided in favor of the petitioner.

2. Proof of debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor:
The petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of &8377; 65,41,590/- from the respondent-corporate debtor, broken down into amounts due for Season 2 and Season 3 services. In response, the respondent contended that it had made payments as per agreements and that the invoices raised were not in accordance with the work done. The respondent claimed to have paid &8377; 1.25 crores for Season 2 and &8377; 1 crore for Season 3 as full and final settlements. The petitioner did not dispute these claims or provide any evidence to prove the debt and liability of the respondent. As a result, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish the debt and liability of the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the petition (CP (IB) No. 9/Chd/Hry/2019).

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not prove the debt and liability of the respondent-corporate debtor despite the validity of the demand notice being upheld.

---