Holding

A demand notice served on the KMP of a corporate debtor at its registered office, in their official capacity, is deemed valid service under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Summary

Visa Coke Ltd., an operational creditor, claimed that it had validly served a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by sending Form 3 to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd. at its registered office. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the Section 9 petition on the ground that the notice was not addressed to the corporate debtor itself, deeming the service invalid. The Supreme Court held that a notice served on KMP in their official capacity at the registered office satisfies the statutory requirement of service on the corporate debtor, constituting deemed service under Section 8. The Court also noted that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights and that the issue of default date and alleged contract novation should be decided by the NCLT on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and remanded the matter to the NCLT for fresh consideration of the Section 9 petition. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a demand notice served on the Key Managerial Personnel of a corporate debtor at its registered office amounts to valid service of the statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC.
Whether the procedural defect of not addressing the notice directly to the corporate debtor can invalidate a Section 9 petition.
Whether the question of the date of default and alleged novation of contract is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by the adjudicating authority.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 2013s. 20(1), s. 2(59)
Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
General Clauses Act, 1987
Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016s. Rule 5(2)(a), s. Rule 5(2)(b)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016s. 8, s. 9

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the notice served by the appellant-Operational Creditor upon the Key Managerial Personnel-KMP of the respondent-Corporate Debtor at their registered office constitutes valid service of the statutory demand notice u/s.8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy a petition u/s.9 for initiation of CIRP against the respondent-Corporate Debtor. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.8 and 9 – Insolvency resolution by operational creditor – Demand notice to corporate debtor – Valid service of statutory demand

Subjects

Corporate debtorOperational creditorCorporate Insolvency Resolution ProcessDemand of unpaid operational debtDemand noticeLow Ash Metallurgical CokeKey Managerial PersonnelStatutory noticeRegistered office of corporate debtorCopy of invoice demanding paymentOfficial capacitiesPurpose of sending demand noticePlea of novation of contractDate of default by the Corporate DebtorProcedural irregularityDeemed service of demand notice

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1950 : 2025 INSC 597

Visa Coke Limited
v.
M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited
(Civil Appeal No. 357 of 2025)
29 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the notice served by the appellant-Operational
Creditor upon the Key Managerial Personnel-KMP of the
respondent-Corporate Debtor at their registered office constitutes
valid service of the statutory demand notice u/s.8 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, so as to maintain a petition u/s.9 for
initiation of CIRP against the respondent-Corporate Debtor.

Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.8 and 9 –
Insolvency resolution by operational creditor – Demand
notice to corporate debtor – Valid service of statutory
demand notice – Compliance – Petition u/s.9 by the appellant-
Operational Creditor to initiate CIRP against the respondent-
Corporate Debtor – Application rejected by the NCLT on the
ground that the alleged demand notice was addressed/sent
to the Key Managerial Personnel-KMP and no demand notice
as required u/s.8(1) sent to the Corporate Debtor and thus,
whether service is valid or not, does not arise at all – NCLAT
upheld the same – Interference with:
Held: s.9 petition can be filed only against the corporate debtor after
giving prior notice u/s.8 to the corporate debtor – s.8(1) requires
the operational creditor to deliver the notice of demand of unpaid
operational debt or a copy of the invoice demanding payment to the
corporate debtor at their registered office and the demand notice
is required to be in the form and manner as prescribed – Appellant
complied with the statutory requirement of sending demand notice
in Form 3 to the respondent as provided u/s.8 before filing the
s.9 petition – Notice sent by the appellant to the Key Managerial
Personnel-KMP of the corporate debtor at the registered office

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1951

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

address in the capacity of their official position, demonstrates that the
same was issued to the corporate debtor demanding the operational
debt due and payable by them – Not the case of the respondent that
no notice was sent by the appellant calling upon the respondent to
pay the operational debt – Also during the pendency of s.9 petition,
the respondent approached the appellant for settlement, which
was not fructified – Substantive right should not be allowed to be
defeated merely on technicality – Respondent unable to show any
substantial prejudice being caused to them on account of procedural
irregularity – Notice issued by the appellant to KMP of the corporate
debtor and delivered at their registered office can be construed as
a deemed service of demand notice u/s.8 – Approach of the NCLT
and the NCLAT rejecting s.9 petition on the technical ground that
no notice was sent to the corporate debtor and the notice sent by
the appellant to the KMP of the corporate debtor cannot be taken
to be a notice issued u/s.8, incorrect and unsustainable in law –
Furthermore, the appellant to establish as to what is the actual date
of default, failing which, the application filed u/s.9 is incomplete –
Issue relating to the date of default by the Corporate Debtor and
novation of contract, if any, being a mixed question of law and fact,
to be decided by NCLT at the time of final disposal of s.9 petition on
merits – Orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT set aside – Matter
remanded to NCLT. [Paras 8.1, 10, 10.1, 14-17]

Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Another [2012] 8 SCR 35 :
(2012) 8 SCC 148; GLAS Trust Co. LLC v. Byju Raveendran &
Others [2024] 10 SCR 1802 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3032; State
Bank of India & Ors. v. The Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan &
Florian Fritsch & Another, C.A. No(s). 5023-5024/2024; Rajneesh
Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla [2001] 1 SCR 54 : (2001) 1 SCC 631;
Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs & Others v. Pramod
Gupta (Dead) by LRs & Others [2002] Supp. 5 SCR 350 : (2003)
3 SCC 272; Ramnath Exports (P) Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta (2022)
7 SCC 678 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 150 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
788 – referred to.
K.B. Polychem (India) Ltd. v. Kaygee Shoetech Pvt. Ltd. (2020)
ibcla.in 193 NCLAT : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
1010 of 2019; Shubham Jain v. Gagan Ferrotech Ltd. and Another
(2021) ibclaw.in 40 : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
1008 of 2019 – referred to.
1952 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016; Companies
Act, 2013.

List of Keywords
Corporate debtor; Operational creditor; Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process; Demand of unpaid operational debt; Demand
notice; Low Ash Metallurgical Coke; Key Managerial Personnel;
Statutory notice; Registered office of corporate debtor; Copy of
invoice demanding payment; Official capacities; Purpose of sending
demand notice; Plea of novation of contract; Date of default by
the Corporate Debtor; Procedural irregularity; Deemed service of
demand notice.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 357 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2024 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal in CAAT (I) No. 247 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv., Diwakar Maheshwari, Ms. Pratiksha
Mishra, Karan Bhootra, Karan Khetani, Jonathan Ivan Rajan.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv., Saswat Kumar Acharya, Dhananjay
Bhaskar Ray, Arjun Bhatia.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and final order
dated 03.10.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi1 in Comp. Appeal (AT)(Ins.)

1 For short, “the NCLAT”
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1953

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

No. 247 of 2023 filed by the appellant herein. By the impugned order,
the NCLAT dismissed the company appeal filed under Section 61
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20162 against the order
dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority viz., National
Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,3 which dismissed the petition
bearing CP(IB) No. 45/CB/2021 filed by the appellant under Section
9 of the IBC seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process4 against the respondent herein.
2. The facts of the case as presented by the appellant, are summarized
as under:
2.1. The appellant is the Operational Creditor, engaged in the
business of manufacture and sale of Low Ash Metallurgical
Coke5 at its plant at Kalinganagar Industrial Complex, Jaipur
Road, Odisha. The respondent is the Corporate Debtor, engaged
in the business of minerals and metals.
2.2. On 11.10.2019, the appellant – Operational Creditor (seller)
and the respondent – Corporate Debtor (buyer) entered into
a contract for sale and purchase of LAM Coke for 12,000 MT
+/- 10% at seller’s option subject to the terms viz., (a) the
respondent agreed to purchase the LAM Coke at the price of
INR 18,800 per metric tonne + GST from the appellant; (b) the
delivery period was up to 10.11.2019; and (c) 100% advance
payment was to be paid by the respondent through RTGS/NEFT
or by opening a Letter of Credit6 prior to dispatch of the material.
2.3. Subsequently, the said contract was amended on many
occasions with respect to delivery period and date of lifting under
clause 3 of the contract. In terms of the last amendment dated
18.12.2019, the date of lifting was extended upto 10.01.2020.
Accordingly, the appellant supplied LAM Coke to the respondent
and payment was made.
2.4. While so, the respondent sent emails dated 12.11.2019 and
16.11.2019 to the appellant, requesting delivery of 1700 MT

2 For short, “the IBC”
3 For short, “the NCLT”
4 For short, “the CIRP”
5 For short, “the LAM Coke”
6 For short, “the LoC”
1954 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of LAM Coke, with an assurance that LoC would be opened
shortly. Based on the same, the appellant issued delivery
orders for 1700 MT of LAM Coke on credit basis, but payment
was not made, and the same remained due and payable by
the respondent.
2.5. In this regard, the respondent – Corporate Debtor sent an
email on 25.11.2019, admitting their default and assured that
the outstanding payment for 1700 MT of LAM Coke will be
made at the earliest. However, no payment was made, which
compelled the Operational Creditor to issue a legal notice dated
23.11.2020 to the Corporate Debtor through its Director, Sameer
Singh, demanding the outstanding payment for supply of 1700
MT of LAM Coke amounting to INR 3,34,16,661.60 along with
penal interest at 15% per annum.
2.6. Since no response was received from the Corporate Debtor,
the Operational Creditor issued a demand notice in Form
3 on 31.03.2021 in compliance with section 8 of the IBC,
to the Corporate Debtor at its registered address through
its Key Managerial Personnel viz., Director, Chief Financial
Officer and Manager, Commercial, demanding payment of
INR 4,19,77,245.17 (which included principal amount of
INR 3,34,16,661.60 and penal interest calculated till 31.03.2021)
due and payable as on 30.09.2020.
2.7. Though the Corporate Debtor received the demand notice,
they did not send any reply. Hence, the Operational Creditor
filed an application bearing CP(IB) No. 45/CB/2021 before the
NCLT under Section 9 of the IBC, to which, the respondent
filed their reply on 24.09.2022 inter alia stating that they were
unable to pay the outstanding amount due to circumstances
beyond their control.
2.8. However, by order dated 24.01.2023, the NCLT dismissed the
application observing that notice dated 31.03.2021 was sent to
three managerial persons i.e., Sameer Singh, Bibhuti Bhushan
Rath, and S. Subudhi and no notice was sent/addressed to the
Corporate Debtor and hence, the question whether service is
valid or not, does not arise at all.
2.9. Challenging the aforesaid order of the NCLT, the appellant
preferred an appeal bearing Comp. App (AT)(Ins) No. 247 of
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1955

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

2023 before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC. Pursuant
to the issuance of notice, the respondent entered appearance
and filed their reply on 28.05.2023. The appellant also filed
their rejoinder on 05.08.2023.
2.10. However, the NCLAT by order dated 03.10.2024, which is
impugned herein, dismissed the appeal, observing that no
notice has been addressed to the Corporate Debtor through
its managing director etc., and therefore, it cannot be termed
to have been delivered to the Corporate Debtor and cannot be
taken to be a notice issued under section 8 of the IBC.
2.11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the NCLAT, the appellant –
Operational Creditor is before us with the present appeal.
3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that Section 8(1) of the IBC requires the operational creditor, i.e.,
appellant herein, on occurrence of a default, to deliver a demand
notice of unpaid operational debt or a copy of the invoice demanding
payment. The demand notice is required to be in the form and manner
as prescribed, and it is clear that the demand notice is to be delivered
on the corporate debtor. The learned counsel also submitted that
instead of a demand notice, the operational creditor can also deliver
on the corporate debtor, a copy of an invoice, demanding payment
of the defaulted amount. Therefore, once the demand notice, in the
prescribed form, is delivered at the registered office of the corporate
debtor, via any of the modes referred to in Rule 5(2)(a) or (b), the
condition precedent for instituting a section 9 action stands completed.
In the present case, the demand notice was duly delivered to the
registered address of the respondent through its Director, Chief
Financial Officer, and Manager, Commercial and accordingly, the
condition precedent for initiation of CIRP against the respondent,
has been complied with by the appellant.
3.1. It is further submitted that Rule 5(2)(a) of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules,
20167 provides that a demand notice under Section 8 of the
IBC can be served upon the corporate debtor through its Key

7 For short, “the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016”
1956 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Managerial Personnel.8 If the statute and its accompanying
regulations allow for service of a demand notice upon the KMP
of an entity, it follows that the corporate debtor may lawfully
be addressed through its KMP. Moreover, Section 20(1) of
the Companies Act, 2013 also states that a company can be
served through its officer at the registered address. In the
present case, even the ‘subject’ and paragraph 1 of the demand
notice sent by the appellant stated that the notice was indeed
addressed to the Corporate Debtor. However, the NCLT and
NCLAT without properly appreciating that the demand notice
had been addressed to the KMP of the Corporate Debtor in the
capacity of the positions they were holding in the respondent
company – corporate debtor and not in their personal capacity,
dismissed the section 9 petition filed by the appellant merely
on the basis of an alleged procedural irregularity that no notice
was addressed to the corporate debtor through its KMP.
3.2. It is further submitted that Section 9(1) of the IBC confers a
right on the operational creditor to file an application for initiating
CIRP, if, after expiry of ten (10) days of the date of delivery of
the demand notice issued under Section 8(1), either no payment
is received or there is failure to serve the notice of demand,
as adverted to in Section 8(2), is not served on the corporate
debtor by the operational creditor. The plain language, object
and purpose of the above-referred provision is to bring to the
notice (and thus, to make the corporate debtor aware) that an
operational debt is due from it which remains unpaid. As long
as notice in that behalf is delivered at the registered office of the
corporate debtor, the condition precedent would stand fulfilled
enabling the operational creditor to trigger a section 9 petition.
In this case, the appellant - Operational Creditor has done
exactly this. The demand notice would clearly show that it is the
Corporate Debtor who has been called upon to pay the amount
and not its “KMP”. Though both the NCLT and the NCLAT found
that the demand notice was delivered at the registered office of
the Corporate Debtor seeking payment of unpaid operational
debt, they erroneously dismissed the section 9 petition.

8 For short, “KMP”
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1957

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

3.3. The learned counsel also submitted that no ground was raised by
the respondent at the initial stage that they had not received the
demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC. During the pendency
of the section 9 petition, the respondent approached the appellant
to settle the matter, as could be seen from the orders dated
20.04.2022, 02.05.2022, 10.06.2022, 05.07.2022, 22.07.2022,
01.08.2022, 30.08.2022 and 06.12.2022 of the NCLT. However,
no settlement was arrived at before the NCLT. Thereafter,
final arguments were heard on 03.01.2023 and 10.01.2023,
in which the respondent had raised certain arguments for
the first time, which were not borne out of pleadings. The
appellant vehemently objected to such arguments. However,
the NCLT erred in dismissing the section 9 petition by order
dated 24.01.2023, based on the contentions which were not
pleaded in their reply. Regarding the principles of the necessity
of pleadings, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court
in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Another.9 Therefore, the
learned counsel prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside
the order impugned herein.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that as per the accounts of the respondent, the appellant’s Group of
Companies owes a sum of Rs. 75,44,461.52 to Mid-East Integrated
Steel Ltd (MISL), the parent company of the respondent, therefore
requiring a reconciliation of accounts between the parties. Without
waiting for a reconciliation of accounts, the appellant issued an
alleged statutory demand notice dated 31.03.2021 purportedly under
section 8 of the IBC, in the names of the KMP of the respondent
viz., (1) Mr. Sameer Singh, Director, (2) Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Rath,
CFO and (3) Mr. S. Subudhi, Manager, Commercial. Whereas,
Section 8(1) of the IBC states that notice has to be issued to the
corporate debtor. Thus, it is clear that the alleged demand notice has
been addressed to the KMP of the Corporate Debtor and not to the
Corporate Debtor and the same was not in consonance with Section
8 of the IBC r/w Rule 5(2) of the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016
r/w the statutorily prescribed Form 3 and Form 5 of the Adjudicating
Authority Rules, 2016. Hence, the alleged demand notice having not
been issued to the respondent being the Corporate Debtor, was not
valid in the eyes of law.

9 (2012) 8 SCC 148
1958 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4.1. According to the learned counsel, section 9 petition filed by the
appellant - Operational Creditor seeking initiation of CIRP against
the respondent herein for the alleged default of operational
debt to the tune of Rs. 4,19,77,245.17 (including interest), is
wholly untenable.
4.2. It is submitted that the issue as to the tenability of the subject
demand notice has been raised by the respondent before the
NCLT, which is the court of first instance, both in oral and written
arguments. This has also been traversed by the appellant both
in its oral and written arguments. In any case, the question of
what constitutes valid service of statutory notice on the Corporate
Debtor being a pure question of law, could have been raised
at any stage of the proceedings.
4.3. It is further submitted that Rule 5(2)(a) of the Adjudicating
Authority Rules, 2016 provides that notice has to be sent
to the registered office for which various modes have been
provided, namely, by hand, registered post, or speed post with
acknowledgement, but the notice has to be sent to the corporate
debtor at its registered office. Rule 5(2)(b) provides for delivery
of notice by electronic mail to the KMP of the corporate debtor,
but it does not apply to the present case because admittedly
no electronic mail has been sent.
4.4. It is also submitted that the principles of constructive notice
and deemed service are inapplicable to the present case,
since the statute itself is clear enough that a demand notice
sent through registered post or speed post has to be served
upon the corporate debtor which is a separate juristic entity as
against the individuals on whom it has been served.
4.5. It is submitted that the NCLT has rightly not ventured into the
merits of the case, and has dismissed the Section 9 petition at
the very threshold on the ground that the demand notice was not
validly served on the respondent. Apart from the above aspect
relating to demand notice, the appellant failed to make out a
case of default which is a mandatory precondition to admit a
petition u/s. 9 of the IBC.
4.6. It is submitted that Clause 7 of the IBC Bill stated that admission
of CIRP should not be made as a matter of regular practice.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1959

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

The requirement to provide proof of valid service of demand
notice to the corporate debtor ensures that creditors do not
file frivolous applications which prematurely put the corporate
debtor into CIRP for extraneous considerations. Whereas, the
present case pertains to an application which itself is totally
incomplete and non-maintainable, and thus deservedly came
to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the repercussions
of admission of insolvency are far-reaching and irreversibly
damaging. It can paralyze a perfectly solvent company. Hence,
the onus was heavily on the appellant to show, beyond any
shadow of doubt, that there existed the required criteria for
admission of the application. On the other hand, non-admission
does not ipso facto foreclose the rights of the appellant as it
can still approach several other forums to recover their alleged
dues by proving it.
4.7. Referring to the recent decisions of this court in GLAS Trust Co.
LLC v. Byju Raveendran & Others10 and State Bank of India &
Ors. v. The Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan & Florian Fritsch &
Another (Jet Airways case),11 it is submitted that the IBC is a
complete code in itself and the procedure prescribed by it has
to be mandatorily followed.
4.8. Stating so, the learned counsel submitted that the orders passed
by the NCLT and NCLAT rejecting the section 9 petition are
perfectly correct and the same do not call for any interference
by this court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record carefully and meticulously.
6. Admittedly, the appellant – Operational Creditor moved the NCLT by
filing a petition under section 9 of the IBC to initiate CIRP against
the respondent – Corporate Debtor. However, the said application
was rejected by the NCLT on the ground that the alleged demand
notice was addressed/ sent to the KMP and no demand notice as
required under section 8(1) of the IBC was sent to the Corporate
Debtor and therefore, the question of whether service is valid or not,

10 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3032
11 C.A. Nos. 5023-5024/2024
1960 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

does not arise at all. The said decision was also affirmed by the
NCLAT by the order impugned herein. Aggrieved, this civil appeal
by the appellant - Operational Creditor before us.
7. The short question that arises for our consideration is, whether the
notice dated 31.03.2021 served by the appellant – Operational Creditor
upon the KMP of the respondent – Corporate Debtor at their registered
office constitutes valid service of the statutory demand notice under
Section 8 of the IBC, so as to maintain a section 9 petition for initiation
of CIRP against the respondent – Corporate Debtor.
8. It is well settled law that an operational creditor must send a demand
notice of unpaid operational debt to the corporate debtor as mandated
under section 8 of the IBC, before initiating the proceedings under
section 9 for CIRP and the failure to issue a proper demand notice
can render the section 9 petition invalid. For the sake of specificity,
Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC and Rule 5 of the Adjudicating Authority
Rules, 2016 are reproduced below:
“Section 8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor.
(1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a
default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational
debtor 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.
(2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days
of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice
mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the
operational creditor
(a) existence of a dispute, [if any, or] record of the pendency
of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt
of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute;
(b) the payment of unpaid operational debt
(i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic
transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of
the corporate debtor; or
(ii) by sending an attested copy of record that the
operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by
the corporate debtor.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1961

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, a “demand
notice” means a notice served by an operational creditor to
the corporate debtor demanding payment of the operational
debt in respect of which the default has occurred.”
“Section 9: Application for initiation of corporate insolvency
resolution process by operational creditor.
(1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date
of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment
under sub-section (1) of section 8, if the operational creditor
does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or
notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of section 8,
the operational creditor may file an application before the
Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency
resolution process.
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in
such form and manner and accompanied with such fee
as may be prescribed.
(3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application
furnish-
(a) a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand
notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate
debtor;
(b) an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given
by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid
operational debt;
(c) a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions
maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming
that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt [by
the corporate debtor; if available;]
[(d) a copy of any record with information utility confirming
that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by
the corporate debtor, if available; and
(e) any other proof confirming that there is no payment
of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor or
such other information, as may be prescribed.]
1962 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(4) An operational creditor initiating a corporate insolvency
resolution process under this section, may propose a
resolution professional to act as an interim resolution
professional.
(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days
of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), by
an order
(i) admit the application and communicate such decision
to the operational creditor
and the corporate debtor if,-
(a) the application made under sub-section (2) is complete;
(b) there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt;
(c) the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor
has been delivered by the operational creditor;
(d) no notice of dispute has been received by the
operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the
information utility; and
(e) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any
resolution professional proposed under sub-section (4),
if any;
(ii) reject the application and communicate such decision
to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, if-
(a) the application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete;
(b) there has been payment of the unpaid operational debt;
(c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for
payment to the corporate debtor;
(d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational
creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information
utility; or
(e) any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any
proposed resolution professional:
Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting
an application under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) give a
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1963

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application
within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice
from the Adjudicating Authority.
(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall
commence from the date of admission of the application
under sub-section (5) of this section.”
“5. Demand notice by operational creditor.—(1) An
operational creditor shall deliver to the corporate debtor,
the following documents, namely.-
(a) a demand notice in Form 3; or
(b) a copy of an invoice attached with a notice in Form 4.
(2) The demand notice or the copy of the invoice demanding
payment referred to in sub-section (2) of section 8 of the
Code, may be delivered to the corporate debtor,
(a) at the registered office by hand, registered post or
speed post with acknowledgement due; or
(b) by electronic mail service to a whole time director or
designated partner or key managerial personnel, if any,
of the corporate debtor.
(3) A copy of demand notice or invoice demanding payment
served under this rule by an operational creditor shall also
be filed with an information utility, if any.”
8.1. Thus, it is manifest that a section 9 petition can be filed only
against the corporate debtor after giving prior notice under
section 8 of the IBC to the corporate debtor; and the key
requirements for filing the same are (i) demand notice under
section 8 must be served on the corporate debtor; (ii) after 10
days, if the payment is not made or if there is no valid dispute,
the application can be filed; (iii) application must be filed in Form
5 as prescribed by the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016; and
(iv) supporting evidence such as invoices, bank statements, or
written contracts must be attached. Further, a conjoint reading of
section 8 of the IBC r/w Rule 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Adjudicating
Authority Rules, 2016 would reveal that a demand notice under
section 8 can be addressed and delivered to the corporate
debtor through its KMP.
1964 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

9. Additionally, it is to be noted that the operational creditor is required
to send the demand notice in Form 3, which is the prescribed format
used to comply with Section 8(1) of the IBC. For better appreciation,
the same reads as under:
FORM 3
(See clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5)

FORM OF DEMAND NOTICE / INVOICE DEMANDING
PAYMENT
UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY
CODE, 2016
(Under rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016)
[Date]
To,
[Name and address of the registered office of the corporate
debtor]

From,
[Name and address of the registered office of the
operational creditor]

Subject: Demand notice/invoice demanding payment in
respect of unpaid operational debt due from [corporate
debtor] under the Code.

Madam/Sir,
1. This letter is a demand notice/invoice demanding
payment of an unpaid operational debt due from [name
of corporate debtor].
2. Please find particulars of the unpaid operational debt
below:

PARTICULARS OF OPERATIONAL DEBT
1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBT, DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS
ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH DEBT FELL DUE, AND THE
DATE FROM WHICH SUCH DEBT FELL DUE
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1965

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

2. AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE
ON WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED (ATTACH THE
WORKINGS FOR COMPUTATION OF DEFAULT IN
TABULAR FORM)
3. PARTICULARS OF SECURITY HELD, IF ANY, THE DATE
OF ITS CREATION, ITS ESTIMATED VALUE AS PER
THE CREDITOR.
ATTACH A COPY OF A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
OF CHARGE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF
COMPANIES (IF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR IS A
COMPANY)
4. DETAILS OF RETENTION OF TITLE ARRANGEMENTS
(IF ANY) IN RESPECT OF GOODS TO WHICH THE
OPERATIONAL DEBT REFERS
5. RECORD OF DEFAULT WITH THE INFORMATION
UTILITY (IF ANY)
6. PROVISION OF LAW, CONTRACT OR OTHER
DOCUMENT UNDER WHICH DEBT HAS BECOME DUE
7. L I S T O F D O C U M E N T S AT TA C H E D TO T H I S
APPLICATION IN ORDER TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE
OF OPERATIONAL DEBT AND THE AMOUNT IN DEFAULT

3. If you dispute the existence or amount of unpaid
operational debt (in default) please provide the undersigned,
within ten days of the receipt of this letter, of the pendency
of the suit or arbitration proceedings in relation to such
dispute filed before the receipt of this letter/notice.
4. If you believe that the debt has been repaid before the
receipt of this letter, please demonstrate such repayment
by sending to us, within ten days of receipt of this letter,
the following:
a. an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of
the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate
debtor; or
b. an attested copy of any record that [name of the
operational creditor] has received the payment.
5. The undersigned, hereby, attaches a certificate from an
information utility confirming that no record of a dispute
raised in relation to the relevant operational debt has been
filed by any person at any information utility. (if applicable)
1966 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

6. The undersigned request you to unconditionally repay
the unpaid operational debt (in default) in full within ten
days from the receipt of this letter failing which we shall
initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process in respect
of [name of corporate debtor].
Yours sincerely,

Signature of person authorized to act on behalf of the operational
creditor
Name in block letters
Position with or in relation to the operational creditor
Address of person signing

Instructions
1. Please serve a copy of this form on the corporate
debtor, ten days in advance of filing an application under
section 9 of the Code.
2. Please append a copy of such served notice to the
application made by the operational creditor to the
Adjudicating Authority.
9.1. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the statutory Form 3 itself
mentions “Name and address of the registered office of the
corporate debtor” and “Madam/Sir”. It requires the operational
creditor to state the name and address of the registered office.
Further, in the ‘subject’ heading, the operational creditor is
required to state clearly the demand notice/ invoice demanding
payment of money against unpaid operational debt from the
corporate debtor.
10. As already stated above, Section 8(1) required the operational creditor
to deliver the notice of demand of unpaid operational debt or a copy
of the invoice demanding payment to the corporate debtor at their
registered office; and the demand notice is required to be in the form
and manner as prescribed. According to the appellant, the notice
dated 31.03.2021 sent to the KMP of the respondent - Corporate
Debtor at their registered office, is in compliance with the provisions
of the IBC viz., Section 8 of the IBC r/w Form 3 of the Adjudicating
Authority Rules, 2016, and hence, the NCLT as well as the NCLAT
cannot reject the section 9 petition filed by the appellant – Operational
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1967

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

Creditor at the threshold. For better appreciation, Form 3 sent by
the appellant reads as follows:
“FORM 3
[See clause (a) of sub rule (1) of Rule 5]
FORM OF DEMAND NOTICE/INVOICE DEMANDING
PAYMENT UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016
(Under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016
31 March 2021
To
1. Mr. Sameer Singh
Director
MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited
3915, Lewis Road, MESCO Tower,
Kedar Gouri Square,
Bhubaneshwar- 751002

2. Bibhuti Bhushan Rath
Chief Financial Officer
MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited
3915, Lewis Road, MESCO Tower,
Kedar Gouri Square,
Bhubaneshwar- 751002

3. Mr. S. Subudhi
Manager-Commercial
MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited
3915, Lewis Road, MESCO Tower,
Kedar Gouri Square,
Bhubaneshwar - 751002

From:
Ms. Radhika Agarwal
Company Secretary
VISA Coke Limited
VISA HOUSE, 8/10Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027
1968 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Subject: Demand Notice/invoice demanding payment
in respect of unpaid operational debt due from MESCO
Kalinga Steel Limited (Mesco) under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code)

Dear Sirs,
1. This letter is a Demand Notice/invoice demanding
payment in respect of unpaid operational debt due from
MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited under the Code.
2. Please find the particulars of the unpaid operational
debt below:
………”
10.1. On a perusal of Form 3 notice dated 31.03.2021 issued by
the appellant, it is revealed that the same was addressed to
the names of the KMP and delivered to the registered office
of the respondent - Corporate Debtor viz., MESCO Kalinga
Steel Limited. Even the ‘subject’ and paragraph 1 of the notice
clearly demonstrate that as per the IBC, demand notice /
invoice demanding payment in respect of unpaid operational
debt due from the corporate debtor was issued and thereby,
the appellant called upon the Corporate Debtor to pay the
operational debt within a period of ten days from the date
of receipt of the notice, failing which, CIRP be initiated in
respect of the Corporate Debtor. Notably, the said notice dated
31.03.2021 was served on the KMP in their official capacities
at the registered office address of the corporate debtor. The
contents of the notice clearly establish that the same was
issued to the Corporate Debtor in respect of the operational
debt due and payable by them. As such, it cannot be said that
the appellant did not comply with the statutory requirement of
sending demand notice in Form 3 to the respondent - Corporate
Debtor as provided under section 8 of the IBC, before filing
the section 9 petition seeking initiation of CIRP against the
respondent in respect of the unpaid operational debt.
11. In this context, we may take aid of the decision in Rajneesh
Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla,12 wherein, this Court while dealing with

12 (2001) 1 SCC 631
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1969

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

requirement of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, held that a notice issued upon the Director of the Company
amounts to notice to the Company. It was further held that the object
of issuance of notice must be kept in mind and that the same cannot
be construed in a narrow and technical manner without examining
its substance. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“…it is no doubt true that all the three requirements under
clauses (a), (b) and (c) must be complied with before the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, can be said to have been committed and Section
141 indicates as to who would be the persons, liable in
the event the offence is committed by a company. The
High Court itself on facts, has recorded the findings that
conditions (a) and (b) under Section 138 having been duly
complied with and, therefore, the only question is whether
the conclusion of the High Court that condition (c) has
not been complied with, can be said to be in accordance
with law. Mere dishonour of a cheque would not raise to
a cause of action unless the payee makes a demand in
writing to the drawer of the cheque for the payment and
the drawer fails to make the payment of the said amount
of money to the payee. The cheques had been issued
by M/s Bhalla Techtran Industries Limited, through its
Director Shri Amit Bhalla. The appellant had issued notice
to said Shri Amti J. Bhalla, Director of M/s Bhalla Techtran
Industries Limited. Notwithstanding the service of the
notice, the amount in question was not paid. The object
of issuing notice indicating the factum of dishonour of the
cheques is to give an opportunity to the drawer to make
payment within 15 days, so that it will not be necessary
for the payee to proceed against in any criminal action,
even though the bank dishonoured the cheques. It is Amit
Bhalla, who had signed the cheques as the Director of
M/s Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd. When the notice was
issued to said Shri Amit Bhalla, Director of M/s Bhalla
Techtran Industries Ltd., it was incumbent upon Shri Bhalla
to see that the payments are made within the stipulated
period of 15 days. It is not disputed that Shri Bhalla has
not signed the cheques, nor is it disputed that Shri Bhalla
1970 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

was not the Director of the company. Bearing in mind the
object of issuance of such notice, it must be held that the
notices cannot be construed in a narrow technical way
without examining the substance of the matter. We really
fail to understand as to why the judgment of this court in
Bilakchand Gyanchand Co.,1999(5) SCC 693, will have no
application. In that case also criminal proceedings had been
initiated against A. Chinnaswami, who was the Managing
Director of the company and the cheques in question had
been signed by him. In the aforesaid premises, we have
no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High
Court committed error in recording a finding that there
was no notice to the drawer of the cheque, as required
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In
our opinion, after the cheques were dishonoured by the
bank the payee had served due notice and yet there was
failure on the part of the accused to pay the money, who
had signed the cheques, as the Director of the company.
The impugned order of the High Court, therefore, is liable
to be quashed.”
12. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to our attention
that in the decision in K.B. Polychem (India) Ltd. v. Kaygee Shoetech
Pvt. Ltd.,13 wherein, the issue that arose for consideration was
‘whether deemed service of demand notice under Section 8 of the
IBC is sufficient, to trigger the process under section 9 of the IBC’,
the NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, after examining the relevant
provisions of the IBC and the Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016 and
Rule 38 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, held
that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the application filed
under section 9 of the IBC. The relevant paragraphs of the same
are extracted below:
“The brief facts as stated in the Appeal is that Appellant/
Applicant had filed an Application under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 after serving the
demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant contends that

13 (2020) ibcla.in 193 NCLAT [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1010 of 2019, decided on 11.02.2020]
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1971

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

the demand notice dated 30.07.2018/01.08.2018 under
Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
was sent by Speed Post, but it was returned with the
remark of the Postal Authorities as “not available”. The
Adjudicating Authority rejected the petition on the ground
that service of the demand notice of the Corporate Debtor
is not established. The contention of the Operational
Creditor that demand notice sent to the Director of
the Company is not returned. Hence, demand notice
shall be deemed served, given the General Clauses
Act, 1987 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The Adjudicating Authority further holds that I & B
Code, 2016 is a complete Code in itself and provisions
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and General Clauses Act,
1987 is not applicable unless specifically covered in I
& B Code, 2016, and based on these, the petition has
been dismissed.
……..
On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Application
filed under Section 9 of I & B Code, 2016 has been
rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that
the service of demand notice under Section 8 of I & B
Code, 2016 is not established. The contention of the
Operational Creditor, that the demand notice sent to the
Director of the Company at his residence, is not returned.
Thus it should be deemed to be served/delivered, given
the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
…….
The Appellant has given sufficient evidence to show the
delivery of demand notice. There is no specific denial of
service of demand notice. The corporate debtor has itself
stated that in reply to the demand notice, he had raised
the dispute of unpaid operational debt. But no document is
placed before us to show the existence of dispute before
issuance of demand notice. Copy of invoices, demand
notice, bank statement all other documents are placed
before us which clearly shows that the corporate debtor
1972 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

failed to pay off the operational debt of more than Rs One
Lac, despite service of demand notice.”
13. Following the above decision, the NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi,
in Shubham Jain v. Gagan Ferrotech Ltd. and Another,14 wherein,
the issue that fell for consideration was ‘whether service of Demand
Notice u/s 8 of the Code on a Director of the Corporate Debtor can
be construed as deemed delivery or not for Initiation of Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the IBC’, held that
service of notice on the Director must be held to be good service.
The relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced below:
“7. Admittedly, the Demand Notices sent u/s 8 of the
Code to the registered address, and functional address
of the Corporate Debtor met with the remarks’ addressee
moved’ and ‘unclaimed’ respectively. Unclaimed, will
also have to be treated as Service of Notice. Again one
set of Demand Notice was duly served upon one of the
Directors of the Corporate Debtor. The legislative intent
of issuance of Demand Notice under Section 8(1) is not
a mere formality but a mandatory provision. Only after
service of notice under Section 8(1) and on completion
of 10 days, if payment towards the demand is not made,
an Operational Creditor gets right to apply under Section
9 and not before such date. Upon perusal of the record,
it is apparent that the Demand Notice was duly served on
the functional address as well as Director of the Corporate
Debtor. Under Section 2(59) of the Companies Act, 2013
Director is included in to definition of Officer. Under Section
20 of the Act a document served on a Company or on
Officer thereof is service recognized. Going from Principles
of Natural Justice, in terms of Section 424 of Companies
Act read with above provision of Service of Notice on
Director must be held to be good service. Therefore, in
our opinion, the mandate u/s 8 of the Code was fulfilled,
and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the
application u/s 9 filed by the Operational Creditor for
initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against
the Corporate Debtor.”

14 (2021) ibclaw.in 40 [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1008 of 2019 decided on 29.01.2021]
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1973

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

14. Undoubtedly, the purpose of sending a demand notice is to give the
corporate debtor an opportunity to either repay the outstanding debt,
or dispute the debt if there are genuine reasons. In the present case,
the notice dated 31.03.2021 sent by the appellant to the KMP of
the corporate debtor at the registered office address in the capacity
of their official position, explicitly demonstrates that the same was
issued to the corporate debtor demanding the operational debt due
and payable by them. However, it is not the case of the respondent
that no notice was sent by the appellant calling upon the respondent -
Corporate Debtor to pay the operational debt. Further, it is pertinent
to point out that during the pendency of the section 9 petition, the
Corporate Debtor approached the Operational Creditor for settlement,
which was not fructified.
14.1. This Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs
& Others v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs & Others, 15
categorically observed that ‘laws of procedure are meant
to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing
substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an
adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under
personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been
viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper
the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice’. It is
also a trite law that ‘the procedural defect may fall within the
purview of irregularity, but it should not be allowed to defeat
the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording
reasonable opportunity’.16 In other words, a substantive right
should not be allowed to be defeated merely on technicality.
In the instant case, the respondent was unable to show any
substantial prejudice being caused to them on account of such
procedural irregularity. Therefore, in our opinion, the notice
dated 31.03.2021 issued by the appellant to the KMP of the
Corporate Debtor and delivered at the registered office of the
Corporate Debtor, can be construed as a deemed service of
demand notice as required under section 8 of the IBC. In such
view of the matter, the approach of the NCLT and the NCLAT

15 (2003) 3 SCC 272, a five Judge bench, SCC pp. 300-01, para 26
16 Ramnath Exports (P) Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, (2022) 7 SCC 678 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 150 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 788 at page 684
1974 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

rejecting the section 9 petition on the technical ground that no
notice was sent to the corporate debtor and the notice sent
by the appellant to the KMP of the corporate debtor cannot
be taken to be a notice issued under section 8 of the IBC, is
incorrect and is unsustainable in law.
15. Yet another mandatory requirement to admit the section 9 petition is
the occurrence of a ‘default’. It cannot be disputed that the trigger to
initiate CIRP under section 9 of the IBC is occurrence of a “default”
and not “mere existence of debt”. In other words, the appellant has
to establish as to what is the actual date of default, failing which, the
application filed under section 9 of the IBC is incomplete. In this case,
the appellant mentioned the date of default as 19.11.2019, in terms
of the contract dated 11.10.2019. As per the contract, in respect of
supply of LAM Coke by the appellant, the respondent had to pay
100% in advance through RTGS / NEFT fund transfer or alternatively
by opening of LoC prior to dispatch. Subsequently, the contract was
amended on various occasions, relating to lifting and delivery of LAM
Coke. Further, at the request of the respondent, by emails dated
12.11.2019 and 16.11.2019, the appellant permitted the respondent
to lift the coals without making payment in advance / opening LoC
prior to despatch. On this basis, the respondent contended that the
contract dated 11.10.2019 is novated and the default date mentioned
in the petition is incorrect.
15.1. However, the NCLT declined to decide this question as the
respondent raised the plea of novation of contract to nullify
the occurrence of default without pleading the same, and that,
the question of novation of contract is a mixed question of
law and fact. The NCLAT also, did not delve into this aspect,
as the same was not a subject matter of the appeal before it.
15.2. In the given factual matrix, we are of the view that the issue
relating to the date of default by the Corporate Debtor and
novation of contract, if any, being a mixed question of law
and fact, requiring detailed analysis based on the materials
adduced by the parties, is to be decided by the NCLT at the
time of final disposal of the section 9 petition, on merits.
16. In the ultimate analysis, we find that the orders passed by the NCLT
and NCLAT rejecting the section 9 petition filed by the appellant,
deserve to be interfered with by us.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1975

Visa Coke Limited v. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited

17. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed by setting aside the orders
impugned herein and the matter is remanded to the NCLT, which
shall entertain the section 9 petition and decide the same afresh,
on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity to the parties by
letting in oral and documentary evidence. Needless to state that the
NCLT shall pass orders without being influenced by any observations
made in its earlier order. No order as to costs.
18. Connected miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain