TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f financial assistance by Bank of Baroda to the Corporate Debtor, the said assistance was secured by execution of a Letter of Guarantee dated 01.02.2013 by the appellant. It is an admitted position that the said loan was recalled by a recall letter dated 19.07.2014 issued by the Respondent Bank, calling upon the Appellant to repay the entire outstanding dues towards the loan liability. Simultaneously, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was also issued by the Respondent on 26.08.2014. Owing to the acknowledgment of debt by the Company, as reflected in its audited balance sheets for the financial years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, the Corporate Debtor was directed to be admitted into CIRP by an order dated 18.09.2017. 2. In the absence of receipt of any Resolution Plan, the Corporate Debtor was ordered to be liquidated by an order passed in MA/341/2018 in CP/588/IB/CB/2017 on 06.02.2019. Consequentially, a demand notice in Form B under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to the Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019 was issued by the financial creditor, bank of Baroda, against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Flower Apartments, No. 85. 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083. The second address correspondence to the address given in the Guarantee agreement dated 01.02.2013. Therefore, it cannot be said that the demand notice in Form-B was deliberately sent to a wrong address and that it was not served on the Appellant. Since the notice issued by the Financial Creditor in Form B contained both addresses, a presumption arises that the said demand notice issued was communicated to the Appellant. 5. Upon considering the particulars of the addresses supplied by the Appellant and placed on record in the present Company Appeal, it is evident that after execution of the Guarantee Agreement on 01.02.2013, the Appellant has repeatedly changed his addresses. This conduct is now being used as a pretext by the Appellant to deny the proceedings by contending that demand notice was sent on the wrong address, that it was not served on him, and hence the said proceedings are vitiated. This contention cannot be accepted because the said notice was served on the address provided by him in the guarantee deed and further, by his own admission, he received the copy of section 95 application in form C whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice was issued to the Appellant at the address mentioned in the Guarantee Agreement, as well as at his place of current residence as per the record available in the Bank, which was reflected as West Mambalam, Chennai. Thus, the contention raised by the Appellant before the Learned NCLT that the proceedings would be vitiated due to lack of sufficient service of notice in Form B is not acceptable. 8. The Appellant has contended that the order of Learned NCLT that the proceedings stood vitiated on the ground that no finding was recorded regarding insufficient service of notice which he raised before Ld. NCLT. Such contention cannot be sustained because there is no denial of the fact that all addresses detailed in Form B and the recall letter were those of the Appellant. It is also not the case of the Appellant that notices were not sent to all such addresses. Furthermore, once the copy of the section 95 application was admittedly received by him at the Mylapore address, it must be deemed that Form B demand notice was also served upon him at the said address and at the other addresses mentioned therein, thereby giving him due knowledge of the proceedings. 9. Further, there are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the same by arranging documents to prove that he is not obliged to make the payment. In the instant case, the Form- B demand notice was first served on the Appellant and thereafter, the copy of application filed under section 95 was also served on him which contained copy of such demand notice. The appellant has denied receipt of the demand notice, but he has not denied the receipt of the copy of the application, which means that he has received the copy of demand notice contained therein. This fact has also been stressed by the Respondent herein who made the same statement before Ld. NCLT. 11. Hence, the plea of non-service of notice cannot be accepted. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal under Section 95 of the I&B Code, admitting the application and resulting in initiation of the personal insolvency process, is held to be not vitiated. There are some more points regarding the conduct of the Appellant which needs to be highlighted. The instant Company Appeal was preferred by the Appellant against the impugned order by filing the same on 11.01.2025. Despite intimation of defects by the Registry of the Tribunal as early as 29.01.2025, the defect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and the Appellant consciously allowed the Appeal to remain defective for nine months until the order dated 03.09.2025 was passed by this Tribunal. This was done despite the Appellant being fully aware that the Resolution Professional's application in IA/IBC/904/CHE/2025 was under consideration in the Company Petition, wherein the Appellant was required to submit a revised repayment plan-an obligation admittedly not discharged. Only after the opportunity to submit the repayment plan was closed by the order dated 12.06.2025 did the Appellant proceed to rectify the defects, and that too only after the order of this Tribunal dated 03.09.2025. 15. This conduct adopted by the Appellant (i) filing the Appeal on 11.01.2025; (ii) non-submission of the revised repayment plan; (iii) closure of the opportunity to submit the revised repayment plan by order dated 12.06.2025; and (iv) rectification of defects only after the order dated 03.09.2025, clearly demonstrates mala fides on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant evidently sought to gain time and delay the proceedings under Section 95 of the I&B Code. What is even more concerning is that despite being fully conscious of the proceedi....