# In the matter of Vinita Pramod Devkar vs. Shri Kailash Shah and Anr.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-05-09. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00044. This case involves an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 02.01.2024,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 May 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00044
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vinita-pramod-devkar-vs-shri-kailash-shah-and-anr-398ef868

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 02.01.2024, which admitted a Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor and initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor claimed non-payment for socks supplied to the Corporate Debtor, leading to the issuance of a Section 8 Demand Notice. The Corporate Debtor contended that the demand notice was not validly served and that pre-existing disputes existed between the parties.

## Facts

S.R. Garments had an agreement with the Government of Uttar Pradesh to supply socks. M/s Rameshwar Textiles Mills Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) engaged Sadhna Dye Chem (Operational Creditor) as a sub-contractor, who in turn engaged AOV Clever Knit LLP as a sub-contractor. The Operational Creditor supplied socks to the Corporate Debtor and raised six invoices amounting to Rs. 1,65,97,750/-. A Section 8 Demand Notice was issued on 24.04.2023, but delivery by post was unsuccessful. On 02.05.2023, the Demand Notice was purportedly served by email, which the Corporate Debtor claimed not to have received. On 07.07.2023, the Operational Creditor filed a Section 9 application for an operational debt of Rs. 4,29,14,887/- and purportedly served an advance copy by email on

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Section 8 Demand Notice was …

**Ratio:** Service of a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC is a mandatory requirement for

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal found that the Operational Creditor had initially sent the Section 8 Demand

…

**Interpretation:** The Tribunal interpreted that sending the demand notice to the registered email

…

**Application:** The Tribunal applied this reasoning to the facts, noting that the email address

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Vinita Pramod…
- **Respondents:** Rameshwar Textile…; Kailash…

## Timeline

- **2017-11-16 — Invoice Issuan…**: Start date for the issuance of six invoices by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate…
- **2017-12-27 — Invoice Issua…**: End date for the issuance of six invoices by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/vinita-pramod-devkar-vs-shri-kailash-shah-and-anr-398ef868