IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI BENCH (COURT – II)

Item No. 204

IB-670/ND/2024

RA-152/2024

IN THE MATTER OF IB-670/ND/2024:

Nona Lifestyle Private Limited … Applicant/

Operational Creditor

Versus

Zomato Limited … Respondent/

Corporate Debtor

AND IN THE MATTER OF R.A. No. 152/2024

Nona Lifestyle Private Limited,

2^nd Floor, Siyat House, 42 Mile Stone,

KH 20-22, Kherki Daula,

Delhi- Jaipur Expressway, Sector 76,

Gurugram, Haryana- 122003 … Applicant/

Operational Creditor

Versus

Zomato Limited,

GF- 12A, 94, Ground Floor,

Meghdoot, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 110019

Also at: Pioneer Square, Sector 62,

Golf Course Extension Road,

Gurgaon, Haryana- 122102 … Respondent/

Corporate Debtor

Under Section: 9 of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on 03.04.2025

CORAM:

SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J)

MS. REENA SINHA PURI, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

PRESENT:

For the Applicant :

For the Respondent : Adv. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Karan Kohli,

Adv. Arjun Chhibbar, Adv. Akshit Awasthi,

Adv. Ridhima Mehrotra

Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode

ORAL ORDER

RA-152/2024: On 17.03.2025, we passed the following order: -

“RA-152/2024: Ms. Tanu Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that on 25.11.2024 when IB-670/ND/2024 was dismissed for default she had 3 matters listed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and though she tried her best to join the hearing also before this Tribunal qua IB-670/ND/2024, but as she was rushing from one Court to another before Hon’ble Delhi High Court, she could not participate in the proceedings before this Tribunal. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the non-applicants/corporate debtor submitted that the position espoused by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is not correct, as when in the present proceedings it was Advocate Nilanshu Singhal, who appeared only on 21.10.2024 and Ms. Tanu Singhal who is present today never appeared, in WC16294/2024, on 25.11.2024 it was Ms. Tanu Singhal, who represented the petitioner, thus it is not understood that how Advocate Nilanshu Singhal could not remain present before this Tribunal. Having drawn our attention to order dated passed in CRL.M.C. 9180/2024, he submitted that in said matter neither Ms. Tanu Singhal nor Mr. Nilanshu Singhal appeared, thus even the reliance sought to be placed on said order is also of no consequence for the purpose of the present proceedings. With reference to order passed in Test. Cas-13/2020 in Ajay Kishore Sharma vs. State & Ors. Again neither Ms. Tanu Singhal who is present before us today nor Mr. Nilanshu Singhal represented either of the parties. He further submitted that on 25.11.2024, there were 12 matters listed in supplementary list, 4 matters transferred matters category and 9 matters in unlisted category before this Tribunal. The IB- 670/ND/2024 which was listed at serial No. 205 of ordinary list was not expected to reach for hearing at 10:30 am, as espoused by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Confronted with the situation, Ld. Counsel for the applicant prayed for an adjournment to enable her to take instructions from her client whether it would like to pursue the present proceedings or would resort to other remedies available to it.

We asked the Ld. Counsel for the applicant specifically that on what date it would be convenient for her to remain present before this Tribunal, she could opt for 03.04.2025.

List the matter on 03.04.2025.

2. Today, Ms. Tanu Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that she has instruction from her client to buttress the matter on merits. In the process, she could make reference to the demand notice and submitted that though the notice of demand might not be served upon the Corporate Debtor in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of IBC, 2016 and might also be not in the prescribed form, but the intent of law is fulfilled, as the object and intent of Section 8 would be that the Corporate Debtor should know its liability so that it could discharge the same.

3. Per contra Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor,