P.G. Prabhakar Reddy vs Ijm Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 449 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A demand notice under Section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not rendered invalid merely because the address given for the corporate debtor omits the name of the street, where the address stated is the same as that shown by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and the notice was in fact served on the corporate debtor at that address. An objection that a demand notice was not signed by the operational creditor, which was not raised before the Adjudicating Authority, cannot be entertained for the first time in appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
P. G. Prabhakar Reddy ...Appellant
Vs
IJM Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Sayed Mustafa Mumtaz, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
10.12.2018: This appeal has been preferred by Appellant against order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench, Chennai, wherein Section 9 application preferred by 'M/s IJM Concrete Products Private Limited' (Operational Creditor) against 'M/s P Dot G Constructions Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor) was admitted and subsequently Interim Resolution Professional was appointed.
2. On 14th August, 2018, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&B Code, 2016 was not served on the Corporate Debtor before filing the application under Section 9 of I&B Code. The reason was incomplete address of the Corporate Debtor given in the demand notice.
3. On notice, the Respondent - Operational Creditor appears and brought to our notice that the address on which Section 8(1) notice was issued is the same as mentioned in memo of appeal and postal tracking report shows that demand notice was served on 28th October, 2018.
-2- 4. We have gone through the demand notice issued under Section 8(1) and address given therein. We find that the address of the Corporate Debtor has been rightly given as '8 square Plot No.26, Saptagiri Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai' which is the address shown by the Appellant in the main appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that name of the street has not been mentioned, but such submission cannot be accepted the demand notice under Section 8(1) notice having served on the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the ground taken by the Appellant is not acceptable. '
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the demand notices were not signed by the Operational Creditor but we find that no such ground was taken before the Adjudicating Authority. Further, we find that the Appellant has not disputed that the goods were supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor for which payment was not made. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In absence of any merit. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 449 of 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free