Registered address service and limitation in insolvency proceedings: notice by post and later payment can preserve a section 7 claim.

Service of an insolvency application at the registered address reflected in ROC master data is treated as valid when notice is sent by registered post, and the absence of e-mail service or substituted service does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings. The text also notes that a later payment and subsequent demand notice may be relevant to limitation in a section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filing, with the debt claim assessed as not time-barred on those facts. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful and the admission order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the insolvency application and hearing notice at the registered address reflected in the ROC master data was valid, and whether non-service by e-mail or absence of substituted service vitiated the proceedings; (ii) Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether service of the insolvency application and hearing notice at the registered address reflected in the ROC master data was valid, and whether non-service by e-mail or absence of substituted service vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The notice was sent by registered post to the same address shown in the ROC master data. The endorsement that the addressee had left did not displace the fact that service was attempted at the correct registered address. Service by registered post at the correct address was treated as proper service, and the mere absence of e-mail service was held not to be fatal. On these facts, substituted service was not considered necessary.

Conclusion: The objection to service failed and the proceedings were not vitiated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The loan agreement was executed on 28.03.2013, a recall notice was issued on 06.05.2014, and a further payment of Rs. 3 lakhs was made on 18.03.2015. A demand notice was issued on 17.08.2017 and the section 7 application was filed on 16.12.2017. The Tribunal treated the later payment and the subsequent demand notice as part of the continuing debt recovery chronology and held that the claim was not time-barred. The plea that the debt had become barred by limitation was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the application was within time.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed, and the insolvency admission order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Service at the registered address shown in ROC records is valid service when notice is sent by registered post, and a later payment or other legally relevant acknowledgement can keep a debt claim within limitation for section 7 insolvency proceedings.

---