Appellant cannot claim improper service after engaging with liquidator's notices received at branch office

The NCLAT Chennai dismissed an appeal challenging service of notice in CIRP proceedings. The appellant, located in corporate debtor's property, argued notice should have been served at registered office rather than branch address. The tribunal found the appellant had responded to liquidator's notices at the branch address, demonstrating actual knowledge of proceedings. Despite lease deed provisions requiring service at specific address, the appellant could not claim improper service after engaging with notices received at branch office. The tribunal held this was not a case warranting interference and dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves challenges to an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding an application for setting aside an ex-parte order, deposition of a sum of money, and the service of notices.

Challenge to Order Setting Aside Ex-Parte Proceeding:
The Appellant challenged the order setting aside the ex-parte proceeding, arguing mis-appreciation of facts by the Adjudicating Authority in concluding that the Appellant was properly served and chose not to appear. The Liquidator filed an application claiming rent arrears for an ATM on the Corporate Debtor's property. The Appellant contended that the notice was improperly served at the branch office instead of the registered office, citing a lease agreement clause. The Appellant also disputed the amount claimed by the Liquidator and the condition to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs.

Service of Notices and Deposit of Money:
The Liquidator argued that the Appellant was aware of the proceedings as evidenced by a reply sent to the Liquidator. The Liquidator contended that the ATM was being used by non-employees, who paid a commission to the Bank. The Liquidator maintained that the issue of rent payment was pending adjudication. The Liquidator defended the order to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, stating it was to be held in a fixed deposit until the application's disposal.

Judgment and Reasoning:
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant responded to notices sent to the branch office, indicating awareness of the proceedings. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's argument regarding improper service of notice. The Tribunal upheld the order to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, emphasizing that the amount would be returned if the application favored the Appellant. The Tribunal declined to interfere, stating that the Adjudicating Authority's order was well-considered and without error. The issue of rent payment was deemed pending adjudication, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for intervention.

---