A dispute does not mean a mere denial viz. no payment is due because there is a dispute. It is to be remembered that Code is not substitute for Debt Enforcement Procedure – Shri Bijay Pratap Singh Vs. Unimax International – NCLAT
NCLAT held that one of the essential features for consideration of an Application under Section 9 of I & B Code is service of notice. A mere perusal of the paragraph 11 of the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority patently indicates that a perusal of the pleadings showed that the proper ‘service’ was effected on the registered office of the 2nd Respondent/ Corporate Debtor situated at D-410, Pocket 16, Sector VII, Rohini, New Delhi – 110085. Also, it was observed by the Adjudicating Authority that there was no change in the address of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in the ‘Ministry of Corporate Affairs Record’ which also shows the same address. Even the Resolution passed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ on 27.03.2019 had shown the same ‘Registered Office’ address. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority had very rightly adverted to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 35 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 in and by which the ‘service’ is to be effected on the ‘Registered Office’ address and that process was carried out. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that it was ‘Sufficient service’ of the ‘Demand Notice’. As such, the plea taken on behalf of the Appellant that there was no service affected upon the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is not acceded to by this Tribunal. The other plea taken that there was no service by hand or electronic mail service to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ relegates to the background and it pales into insignificance because of the fact that failure/omission to effect service by hand or electronic mail service is not fatal to the instant case.