<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (9) TMI 326 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758082</link>
    <description>NCLT Hyderabad dismissed a petition seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process against a personal guarantor. The court found that the financial creditor failed to properly serve the mandatory demand notice under Section 95(4)(b) of IBC. Despite claiming service of a demand notice dated 16.10.2021, postal records showed the notice was returned undelivered with &quot;no such addressee&quot; endorsement. The creditor had sent the notice to a property address already taken possession of under SARFAESI Act, making proper service impossible. The court held this reduced statutory compliance to mockery, rendering the petition misconceived and contrary to IBC provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:17:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 326 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758082</link>
      <description>NCLT Hyderabad dismissed a petition seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process against a personal guarantor. The court found that the financial creditor failed to properly serve the mandatory demand notice under Section 95(4)(b) of IBC. Despite claiming service of a demand notice dated 16.10.2021, postal records showed the notice was returned undelivered with &quot;no such addressee&quot; endorsement. The creditor had sent the notice to a property address already taken possession of under SARFAESI Act, making proper service impossible. The court held this reduced statutory compliance to mockery, rendering the petition misconceived and contrary to IBC provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>