https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446630 The NCLAT Principal Bench allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The case involved initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor without proper service of mandatory demand notice under Section 8 of IBC. The Adjudicating Authority failed to make specific findings on actual delivery of the demand notice to the corporate debtor, despite the debtor's contestation of service. The NCLAT held that valid proof of delivery is mandatory under Section 8 read with Rule 5 of IBC Rules 2016, and directed fresh examination of the Section 9 application with particular reference to actual and proper delivery of the demand notice. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2023 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446630 The NCLAT Principal Bench allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The case involved initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor without proper service of mandatory demand notice under Section 8 of IBC. The Adjudicating Authority failed to make specific findings on actual delivery of the demand notice to the corporate debtor, despite the debtor's contestation of service. The NCLAT held that valid proof of delivery is mandatory under Section 8 read with Rule 5 of IBC Rules 2016, and directed fresh examination of the Section 9 application with particular reference to actual and proper delivery of the demand notice. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446630