# In the matter of Sunil Sanghavi Vs. Cytech Coatings Pvt. Ltd. CA(AT) (Insolvency) No. 635 of 2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2018-10-30. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLAT-00069. The case involves an appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Oct 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLAT-00069
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sunil-sanghavi-vs-cytech-coatings-pvt-ltd-ca-f955a0e3

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against ESS DEE Aluminium Limited. The appellant, a shareholder of ESS DEE Aluminium Limited, filed the appeal citing a delay and contesting the service of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The Adjudicating Authority had admitted the application filed by the Operational Creditor, leading to the CIRP initiation. The appellant argued that the demand notice was not served at the correct address, as the corporate debtor's office had moved to Mumbai. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's application for recalling the order.

## Facts

The 1st Respondent- ‘Operational Creditor' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘I&B Code') for initiation of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against ESS DEE Aluminium Limited’- (‘Corporate Debtor'). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application. The Shareholder of ‘ESS DEE Aluminium Limited'- (‘Corporate Debtor') filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for recalling of the said order on one of the grounds that notice under Section 8(1) of the ‘I&B Code' was actually not served on the ‘Corporate Debtor'. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application. The Appellant contended that the office of the ‘Corporate Debtor' was not functioning in the Kolkata address and was functioning at

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was properly …

**Ratio:** The provision relating to demand notice under Section 8(1) amounts to an advance notice

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the legislature intended to put the ‘Corporate Debtor' on notice

…

**Interpretation:** Section 8 of the I&B Code requires that a demand notice be served on the

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that the demand notice was not properly served on

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Sunil San…
- **Respondents:** Ess Dee Aluminium…; Cytech Coatings…
- **Advocates:** K.K.Sh…; Mayank…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2018-06-18 — CIRP Init…**: Adjudicating Authority admitted the application for initiation of ‘Corporate Insolvency…
- **2018-10-04 — Rejection of Ap…**: Adjudicating Authority rejected the application filed by the Shareholder of ‘ESS DEE…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sunil-sanghavi-vs-cytech-coatings-pvt-ltd-ca-f955a0e3