https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782169 SC held that mere service of notice on the authorised representative under Rule 38(5) of the NCLT Rules does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of notice to the applicant under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC for curing defects in a Section 7 application. As no proper notice under the proviso was ever issued, the rejection of the application solely on that basis was unsustainable, and NCLAT rightly held so. However, SC found NCLAT erred in not directing the creditor-bank to cure the defective affidavit at its stage and simply remanding for hearing on merits. The appeal was disposed of with these clarifications. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:57:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782169 SC held that mere service of notice on the authorised representative under Rule 38(5) of the NCLT Rules does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of notice to the applicant under the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC for curing defects in a Section 7 application. As no proper notice under the proviso was ever issued, the rejection of the application solely on that basis was unsustainable, and NCLAT rightly held so. However, SC found NCLAT erred in not directing the creditor-bank to cure the defective affidavit at its stage and simply remanding for hearing on merits. The appeal was disposed of with these clarifications. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782169