Arihant Traders vs Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Arihant Traders ...Appellant

Versus

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akash Kakade, Mr. Prashant Phad, Mr. Joharapurkar, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Nishant Kumar, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.01.2026: I.A. No. 5723 of 2025: This is an application praying for

condonation of 58 days' delay in refiling the appeal. Learned counsel for the

Appellant submits that after filing of the Appeal defects were marked and

Appellant took some time in curing the defects. It is submitted that certain

affidavit was required from the Appellant in which some time was taken.

Learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the application and submitted

that application shows casual and neglecting approach of the Appellant. We

find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone 58 days' delay in refiling

the appeal. Delay condoned. I.A. No.5723 of 2025 is disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the

Respondent. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.05.2025

by which order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected Section 9 application

filed by the Appellant. Appellant's case is that it has issued various invoices

Cont'd.../ and issued a demand notice dated 13.08.2019 with regard to work done. It

is submitted that after giving the demand notice, Section 9 application was

filed being CP(IB) No.3392 of 2019 in which reply was filed. The Adjudicating

Authority heard the Appellant by the impugned order dismissed the

application on the ground that demand notice which issued by the Appellant

has not been served on the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority has

noticed that the demand notice which was sent was returned with the

endorsement 'addressee has left'. The Adjudicating Authority came to the

conclusion that when articles sent were returned with remark 'addressee has

left' and no subsequent service was effected, Section 9 application cannot be

admitted. The said observation has been made by the Adjudicating Authority

in Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment.

3. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

rejecting Section 9 application on the ground that demand notice has never

been served. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that the

said notice was also sent by email, which submission is denied by learned

counsel for the Respondent. However, as the above issue was never raised

before the Adjudicating Authority, the said submission needs no

consideration in this appeal. We, thus, are of the view that the Adjudicating

Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Section 9 application on

the ground that demand notice has not been served to the Corporate Debtor.

However, it shall not preclude the Appellant to file fresh petition after serving

demand notice, in accordance with law.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1474 of 2025 2 of 3

4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

maintainability of the such fresh application and if any such fresh application

is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1474 of 2025 3 of 3