Section 7 application could not be dismissed for service non-compliance when the corporate debtor had appeared and sought time.

Dismissal of a Section 7 application solely for alleged non-compliance with service directions was not justified where notice had been issued, paper publication was directed, and counsel for the corporate debtor appeared before the adjudicating authority seeking time to file vakalatnama and a counter affidavit. That appearance showed awareness of the proceedings. On these facts, the dismissal was held erroneous and was set aside, and the application was revived for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the Section 7 application for alleged non-compliance with directions regarding service of notice was justified.

Analysis: The record showed that notice had been issued, paper publication had been directed, and counsel for the Corporate Debtor had appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and sought time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. This appearance indicated awareness of the proceedings. In these circumstances, the subsequent dismissal of the Section 7 application solely on the ground of non-compliance with earlier service directions was not justified.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the Section 7 application was erroneous and was set aside, and the application was revived for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---