2023 (5) TMI 1439 - SCH - IBC

Maintainability of application filed by the Appellant - notice prescribed u/s 8 of the Code was served on 21.03.2017 and the application was filed on 28.03.2017 - date of delivery is to be presumed from 17.03.2017 when the first attempt was made to deliver the notice but it could not delivered because the premises was locked - it was held by the high Court that the presumption of delivery of notice cannot be drawn in the present case w.e.f. 17.03.2017 when it was first offered for delivery but could not be delivered because the premises was found locked as the notice was ultimately delivered on 21.03.2017. Therefore the date of delivery has to be taken as 21.03.2017 when it was actually delivered and not the date when it was firstly offered to be delivered on 17.03.2017 . HELD THAT - It is not convinced that there is not any error in the impugned order passed by the NCLAT. The appeal will stand dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court, with Justices K. M. Joseph and Aravind Kumar presiding, dismissed the appeal against the impugned order of the NCLAT. After hearing senior counsel for both parties, the Court stated it was "not convinced that there is not any error in the impugned order." Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.