Demand notice service and invoice threshold under insolvency law require proof of delivery and proper exclusion of disputed invoices.

Service of a demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not disproved merely because the tracking record shows an incorrect pin code, where delivery at the correct address is otherwise established. The finding of non-service on that basis was unsustainable. The maintainability of a Section 9 application also had to be tested by excluding disputed invoices and examining whether the undisputed invoice value still met the statutory minimum default threshold. That issue had not been properly examined and required fresh consideration. The matter was therefore remitted for a new decision on service of notice and threshold compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not served merely because the tracking report mentioned an incorrect pin code though the notice was delivered at the correct address; and (ii) whether the claim based on invoices had to be examined after excluding the disputed invoices to determine if the remaining amount crossed the statutory threshold.

Issue (i): whether the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not served merely because the tracking report mentioned an incorrect pin code though the notice was delivered at the correct address.

Analysis: Service of the notice is a foundational requirement for a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The notice was sent to the address taken from the company master data. The wrong pin code in the tracking report did not by itself establish non-service, particularly when delivery of the notice at the respondent's address was not in dispute.

Conclusion: The finding of non-service based only on the incorrect pin code could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the claim based on invoices had to be examined after excluding the disputed invoices to determine if the remaining amount crossed the statutory threshold.

Analysis: The tribunal had not examined whether the amount represented by the undisputed invoices, after excluding the invoices relating to the later period, still satisfied the minimum default threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. That determination was necessary for deciding the maintainability of the application on merits.

Conclusion: The matter required fresh examination on the invoice value and the threshold requirement.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision on service of notice and threshold compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice is not invalidated merely because the tracking record mentions an incorrect pin code if delivery at the correct address is established, and the maintainability of a Section 9 application must be assessed on the basis of the amount actually supportable by the undisputed invoices against the statutory threshold.

---