Ravi Goyal vs Butterfly Appliances
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.662 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal accepted the postal tracking report from the Department of Posts as sufficient proof that the demand notice under Section 8(1) was served on the corporate debtor, and rejected the appellant's contention to the contrary. Where the defect alleged is the absence of notice of the admission application and the adjudicating authority's direction that the petitioner serve notice, an appellate court will not remand the matter where remand would be futile in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned order; the appeal is dismissed where the Section 9 application was complete, a default was shown, and a demand notice under Section 8(1) had been served.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ravi Goyal .....Appellant Vs. Butterfly Appliances ......Respondent
Present : For Appellant: Ms. Sonali Karwasra, Mr. Mayank Badoni and Mr. Rajat Sabu Thoppil, Advocates.
For Respondents: Ms. Udita Singh, Advocate for OC.
O R D E R
20.03.2019 - The main plea taken by the Appellant is that without serving
demand notice under Section 8(1) and notice of admission of application, the
impugned order dated 1st August, 2018 was passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench ex-parte. The
Appellant had no knowledge about the certified copy of the impugned order
passed on 1st August, 2018.
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the Respondent
has enclosed the copy of the tracking report of India Post to show that the
demand notice under Section 8(1) was served on the Corporate Debtor on
23rd March, 2018.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to dispute such submission,
but we are accepting the submission made on behalf of the Respondent as
the Report of India Post, the Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi, shows service of notice.
Contd...2/-
-2-
4. So far as notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority is concerned,
learned Counsel for the Respondent has brought to our notice that the
Adjudicating Authority asked the Respondent to serve the notice. Even, if
we accept that the notice should have been issued by the Adjudicating
Authority and should not have directed the Respondent to serve it, the
remand of the case will futile in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned
order. In the circumstances, in absence of any merit, and as remand of the
case will be futile and as we find that the application under Section 9 filed
by Respondent was complete and there is a default and demand notice under
Section 8(1) having served, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order dated 1st August, 2018, as corrected on 9th August, 2018. The appeal
is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
Ash/GC Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.662 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