Duly served insolvency notice under Rule 38 upheld where email service and attempted physical service were recorded.

Notice in section 7 insolvency proceedings was found duly served because the Tribunal had directed service by email to the corporate debtor's registered email and the MCA-registered email address, and the record showed email service on more than one occasion. Attempted physical service at the registered office was also reflected, with entry denied. Applying Rule 38 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the challenge to service was rejected, and the admission order on the section 7 application was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice in the section 7 insolvency proceedings was duly served on the corporate debtor in accordance with Rule 38 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and whether the admission order required interference.

Analysis: Rule 38(1) permits service at the email address provided in the petition or application or in the reply, and Rule 38(2) permits physical service in modes directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had specifically directed service through email to the corporate debtor's registered email and through the email address registered with the MCA, and the record showed service by email on more than one occasion. The service record also reflected attempted physical service at the registered office, where entry was not allowed. In view of the mode of service directed by the Tribunal and the materials showing email and attempted physical service, the challenge to service was not accepted.

Conclusion: Notice was duly served, and no ground was made out to interfere with the order admitting the section 7 application.

---