(1) Shri Kailash Shah Interim Resolution Professional of M/s. Rameshwar Textile Mills Private Limited Having its address at: 505, 21st Century Business Centre Near World Trade Centre Ring Road, Surat Gujarat 395002. (2) Ashish Omprakash Jain Proprietary Concern of Sadhna Dye Chem 235, GIDC Industrial Estate, Pandesara Surat Gujarat 394221. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Pragya Prakash Upadhyay and Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ravi Raghunath and Ms. Aarushi Mishra, Advocates for R2. JUDGMENT (Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 02.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai BenchI) in C.P.(I.B.)728/MB/CI/2023. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor admitting the Corporate Debtor into the rigors of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP' in short). Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Coming to the brief factual background which is relevant for considering the matter at hand, we find that an agreement was entered between S.R. Garments and the Government of Uttar Pradesh for supply of socks. For this purpose, M/s Rameshwar Textiles Mills Private Limited Corporate Debtor engaged Sadhna Dye Chem Operational Creditor as subcontractor and in turn the Operational Creditor had engaged AOV Clever Knit LLP ('Clever Knit' in short) as subcontractor. As part of business transactions, the Operational Creditor supplied socks to the Corporate Debtor and raised six invoices amounting to Rs.1,65,97,750/. On not having received payments, a Section 8 Demand Notice was issued by the Operational Creditor on 24.04.2023 by post, delivery of which was admittedly unsuccessful. Thereafter on 02.05.2023, the Demand Notice was purportedly served by the Operational Creditor by email which the Corporate Debtor contended not to have received. On 07.07.2023, the Operational Creditor filed Section 9 application for an operational debt of Rs.4,29,14,887/ and purportedly served an advance copy of Section 9 petition by email on 07.07.2023. The Adjudicating Authority on 21.08.2023 issued Page 2 of 15 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 364 of 2024 notice and directed the matter to be listed on 12.09.2023. The Corporate Debtor was informed about the date of hearing by email by the Operational Creditor. However, as the Corporate Debtor was not present during the hearing on 12.09.2023, the Adjudicating Authority gave another opportunity to appear on 16.10.2023. The Corporate Debtor was intimated about the next date of hearing by an email sent by the Operational Creditor on 15.10.2023. On 16.10.2023, as the Corporate Debtor again remained absent from the hearing, the Adjudicating Authority granted yet another chance to the Corporate Debtor to file an affidavit in reply and fixed the next hearing as the last opportunity on 22.11.2023. Since the Corporate Debtor did not appear on 22.11.2023, the matter was set exparte by the Adjudicating Authority and the Section 9 petition was admitted and CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the suspended Director has come up in appeal. 3. Shri Palash S. Singhai, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the Section 9 application had been admitted exparte by the Adjudicating Authority without giving the Appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard thereby violating the principles of natural