The appeal arose from a dispute regarding the service of a demand notice and the subsequent filing of a...

The appeal arose from a dispute regarding the service of a demand notice and the subsequent filing of a petition u/s 95 of the Code. The appellant argued that the period for service of the demand notice should be counted as per Section 95(4)(b) of the Code, disregarding the period mentioned in the guarantee agreement. The Tribunal held that based on Clause 3 of the personal guarantee deed, the guarantor had 60 days from the date of the demand notice to pay the amount. The petition u/s 95 was filed prematurely, within one month of the demand notice, contrary to the agreement. The Tribunal correctly allowed the respondent's application and dismissed the appellant's petition u/s 95, along with imposing costs. The Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X