Failure To Deliver Second Demand Notice After First Is Returned Unserved Renders Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Not Maintainable: NCLT New Delhi
Mohd Malik Chauhan
28 July 2025 7:20 PM IST
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that when a demand notice under section 8 of the IBC is returned unserved with the endorsement “the addressee has left without instructions” and the Operational Creditor fails to effect the delivery again by any...
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that when a demand notice under section 8 of the IBC is returned unserved with the endorsement “the addressee has left without instructions” and the Operational Creditor fails to effect the delivery again by any other alternate modes, the petition under section 9 of the IBC cannot be entertained.
The present application has been filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.
The issue for consideration before the Tribunal was whether in the present case a demand notice under section 8 of the IBC can be deemed validly served when the notices were returned with the endorsement Addressee has left without instruction. The notice sent by an email was also bounced.
The Appellate Tribunal in Shubham Jain v. Gagan Ferrotech Ltd. held that when the demand notice was returned with the endorsement the addressee has left without instruction and the Operational Creditor failed to attempt the delivery by any alternate mode, the statutory requirement of sending demand notice under section 8 of the IBC is not satisfied. Therefore, the petition under section 9 was rejected.
Based on the above, it held that “where a demand notice is returned unserved with the remark “addressee has left without instruction” and no subsequent service is effected via email or other electronic means, the service cannot be deemed valid. The operational creditor is obligated to ensure actual or constructive service of the demand notice before initiating insolvency proceedings. Failure to do so renders the Section 9 application liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.”
Accordingly, the present application was rejected.
Case Title: DELHIVERY LIMITED Vs.FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: COMPANY PETITION IB (IBC)/169(ND)2023
Order Date: 22/07/2025