The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Allahabad Bench rejected the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) against respondents (the "Corporate Debtor"), on the grounds that the "Corporate Debtor" had not received notice as required by Section 8(1).
In the instant case titled M/s. Premraj Packagings v. M/s. Unnao Distilleries & Breweries, the issue raised for clarification before the NCLAT was:
Whether the requisite delivery could be deemed as proper delivery?
With regard to this issue, the notification at the "registered office" was returned owing to "insufficient address," so the Tribunal did not consider it to have been delivered of the demand notice. The email was also alleged to have been sent on the Corporate Debtor's master email address, but the Tribunal determined that the Operational Creditor was unable to demonstrate that the email was sent to the targeted recipients, such as directors and managerial personnel, as required by Rule 5. The Tribunal reaffirmed explicitly that, in accordance with Rule 5, "delivery" of the notice, as opposed to merely dispatching the notice, is what Section 8's quintessential requirement requires. However, most recently, the notice was unable to be served in K. B. Polychem (India) Ltd. v. Kaygee Shoetech Private Limited.
The NCLAT categorically stated that,
"However, we are not inclined to accept such e-mail in view of the fact that India Post reported “insufficient address”. In the circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 4th October, 2019, allow the Appellant to serve a fresh Demand Notice under Section 8(1) of the ‘I&B Code’ on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and after service, if the matter is not settled within 10 days, may file a fresh application under Section 9 enclosing therewith the service report. In such case, the Adjudicating Authority will consider the application under Section 9 uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 4th October 2019 and will count the period of limitation taking into consideration the date of e-mail i.e. 5th February 2019. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs.”