Account-wise particulars are essential in Section 95 insolvency claims; vague aggregate demands cannot sustain admission of proceedings.

An application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be supported by clear, account-wise particulars and documents showing the debt, default, and timeliness of the claim. A demand notice based on an aggregate figure drawn from multiple loan accounts, without proper correlation to individual accounts, dates of default, statements of account, and supporting material, is treated as vague and incomplete. A notice under SARFAESI Section 13(2) does not substitute for the separate demand notice required by Rule 7(1). On these facts, the personal insolvency order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of limitation and maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Section 95 application was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the demand notice under Rule 7(1) was served at the wrong address and whether service under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 could substitute it; (iii) Whether the aggregate claim in the demand notice and Section 95 application was vague and unsupported by the required account-wise particulars and documents.

Issue (i): Whether the Section 95 application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the debt arose from separate loan accounts of different banks, with the underlying default predating the Rule 7 notice by several years. The later recovery certificate could not, on the facts, cure the absence of proper linkage between the earlier debts and the aggregate amount claimed in the insolvency application. Excluding the covid suspension period did not alter the position because the claim, as presented, remained unsupported by account-wise particulars necessary to show that the proceedings were within time.

Conclusion: The Section 95 application was held to be barred by limitation in the form in which it was filed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand notice under Rule 7(1) was served at the wrong address and whether service under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 could substitute it.

Analysis: Rule 7(1) requires a separate demand notice in the prescribed form before initiation of personal insolvency proceedings. Service at an address different from the one shown to be current in the record was not treated as a complete answer, and the earlier SARFAESI notice could not be regarded as a legal substitute for the Rule 7 notice. At the same time, the defect in service was not treated as the sole basis of the final decision, because the larger controversy turned on the maintainability of the claim and the sufficiency of the materials supporting it.

Conclusion: The objection regarding service of the Rule 7(1) notice was not accepted as a complete answer to the proceedings, but the Court found the notice issue insufficient to sustain the impugned order in the absence of a properly supported claim.

Issue (iii): Whether the aggregate claim in the demand notice and Section 95 application was vague and unsupported by the required account-wise particulars and documents.

Analysis: Section 95(4) requires the application to be accompanied by details and documents relating to the debts owed, the failure to pay after the demand notice, and evidence of default. The application and notice contained an aggregate figure drawn from multiple accounts, but did not adequately furnish individual account details, dates of default, statement of accounts, or a clear correlation between each account and the total amount claimed. In these circumstances, the Court found the application incomplete and the demand vague. The reliance placed on a later recovery certificate was also not sufficient to cure those deficiencies on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The claim was held to be vague and the Section 95 application was found not to satisfy the statutory requirement of supporting details and documents.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order initiating personal insolvency was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of limitation and account-wise maintainability of the insolvency claim.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be supported by clear, account-wise particulars and documents establishing the debt, default, and timeliness of the claim; a vague aggregate demand without proper linkage to individual debts cannot sustain admission of personal insolvency proceedings.

---