NCLAT Delhi: Issuance Of Demand Notice U/S 8 Of IBC Is Fulfilled By Documentary Evidence Including Postal Receipt

The NCLAT Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra, and Mr. Arun Baroka, upheld the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Topaki Media Private Limited (TMPL) by Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited. TMPL, acting as an advertising agent, had an outstanding debt to Rajasthan Patrika, which it failed to settle. \r

\r

TMPL's director, Mukul Rajhans, contested the CIRP initiation, arguing that no Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was served. However, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, confirming that documentary evidence, including postal receipts and records from India Post, verified the issuance of the Demand Notice to TMPL's registered address. \r

\r

The tribunal emphasized that TMPL did not dispute the debt or address during CIRP proceedings and frequently communicated with Rajasthan Patrika about the outstanding payments. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs. Manju Jain, the NCLAT noted that notice service is presumed effective when sent to the correct address by registered post. Thus, the tribunal affirmed NCLT Mumbai's decision to admit the CIRP petition.