Recent important judgments on “Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC”

Track Recent Trends of Judiciary on IBC: List with brief summary of recent important judgments on "Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC" issued by Operational Creditor to initiate CIRP under Section 9 of IBC.

Decoding the Code
Track Recent Trends of Judiciary on IBC

Recent important judgments on “Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC” issued by Operational Creditor to initiate CIRP under Section 9 of IBC

[2023]

WPIL Ltd. Vs. Gammon India Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 794 NCLT: There is no provision in the IBC that 10 days period of Demand Notice is liable to be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation for filing the petition under Section 9 of the Code.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Universal Journeys India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 420 NCLT: The multiple demand notices u/s 8 of IBC are beyond the ambit of the IBC, 2016.

Shri Karvir Nivasini Mahalaxmi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vistacore Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 375 NCLT: The service of the Demand Notice u/s 8 of the Code is a sine qua non of an application u/s 9 of the IBC.

Entertainment Network India Ltd. Vs. Praise Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 363 NCLT: Requirement of fresh Demand Notice u/s 8 of IBC in case of part payments made by Corporate Debtor, after issuing the first Demand Notice.

Tejinder Pal Setia Vs. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.(2023) ibclaw.in 416 NCLAT: The NCLAT referring the judgment in Neeraj Jain Director of M/s Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Private Limited [2020] ibclaw.in 221 NCLAT held that the Operational Creditor is at liberty to submit Demand Notice either in Form-3 or Form-4. When Notice is issued in Form-4, copy of the Invoice is required to be attached with the Notice.

DHL Supply Chain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 241 NCLT: No illegality or deficiency in the service of the Demand Notice, which has been duly served through the E-mail addressed to the Corporate Debtor with “Attention to its Managing Director”, who is a “Key Managerial Personnel” of the Corporate Debtor.

Winntus Scaffolding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aishwarya Business Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 147 NCLT: The Adjudicating Authority held that the Rule 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016 prescribed form 5 for filing petition under section 9 IBC 2016 by operational creditors. In the form Part IV Serial No.2 specifically required to mention the date of default, so furnishing the date of default is must. In these circumstances, it is answered that non-mentioning of date of default in the petition is fatal to the petition.

Rajeev Srivastva Suspended Director Vs. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 136 NCLAT: A CIRP application under Section 9 of IBC shall be maintainable without service of Demand Notice under Section 8 where winding up proceeding was transferred to NCLT u/s 434 of Companies Act, 2013.

Greymatter Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pro Sportify Pvt. Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 122 NCLAT: If Demand Notice issued u/s 8 of IBC is not replied, whether Corporate Debtor can raise pre-existing dispute in reply to the petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC.

Nileshbhai Shantilal Patel Vs. Westin Resins and Ploymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 91 NCLAT: The issue which has been raised in this appeal as to whether the IRP who had served the notice under Section 8 of the Code is a related party in terms of Section 5(24)(h) of the Code? A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provision would show, firstly, that it relates to the Corporate Debtor and not to the Operational Creditor and secondly the Appellant was to lead evidence that the Director, Partner or Manager was accustomed to act on the directions or instructions of the said IP. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Section 5(24)(h) of the Code is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus the arguments raised in this regard, is hereby rejected.

Sabarmati Gas Ltd. Vs. Shah Alloys Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 02 SC: Section 8 provides that an operational creditor may, on the occurrence of default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid of operational debt or copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may be prescribed. It is apposite to note that a seemingly printing error had occurred in Section 8(1), IBC inasmuch as instead of ‘a demand notice of unpaid operational debt’ it is printed as ‘a demand notice of unpaid operational debtor.’ Evidently, this must have occurred as in the Gazette Notification also the word ‘debtor’ is following the words ‘unpaid operational’. The word ‘debtor’ used therein has to be split into ‘debt’ and ‘or’ so as to serve the purpose and to give the intended meaning to Section 8(1) and this view would get support from sub-section (2) of Section 8 itself.

 

Access all judgments on Demand Notice:

Goto Advance Case Laws Search Function and select Demand Notice from ‘Main Subject’ or select Section 8 from Sections Filter:


Click on below button to search similar judgments:


Follow for daily updates:


Scroll to Top