Hindustan Buildcon Private Limited vs Chanakya Academy For Education And ...

Hindustan Buildcon Private Limited ...Appellants

Vs. Chanakya Academy for Education and Training ...Respondents Pvt. Ltd.

(Arising out of Order dated 26.11.2025, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-IV, in C.P. (IB) No. 548/ND/2025)

For Appellant : Ms. Shraddha Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : None

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

The Appellant herein is the Financial Creditor who has approached this

Tribunal with this appeal challenging the order dismissing its petition filed

u/s 7 of IBC on the ground that the appellant has not filed the proof of

service of notice on the petition to the respondent as directed by the

authority.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that on 17.10.2025 the

Tribunal ordered notice and directed the appellant to submit the proof of service before the next date of hearing and fixed the next date of hearing on

24.11.2025. The Ld. Counsel added that the notice was served as directed

and proof of service was also posted on 22.11.2025 at 1:52 p.m.

3. On 24.11.2025 the case was listed however it did not reach. However,

when the case was taken up on 26.11.2025 the Tribunal had dismissed the

petition on the ground that till that date (26.11.2025) no affidavit of service

has been filed. The Ld. Counsel added that this is an error on the face of

Annexure-6 which provides the details of affidavit which shows that even

22.11.2025 proof of service has been uploaded.

4. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the meantime the appellant has also

taken out IA No. 6000/2025 but this also came to be dismissed on

11.12.2025 on the ground that it lacks merit. The Ld. Counsel circulated copy

of this order.

5. Very evidently, the Adjudicating Authority have been committed an

error. The Annexure-6 demonstrates that notice of service has been provided

even prior to 26.11.2025 and this has been overlooked. Right to litigation is

the substantive right in law that cannot be brittle down neither by

technicalities nor by any mistakes. If the maxim 'Res ipsa loquitur' can be

applied then the appellant needs to proof anything for Annexure-6 to the

appeal memorandum demonstrates the same. Once 'Res ipsa loquitur' keeps

in the other maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' also steps in no party

shall be penalised for the mistake of the Court.

6. The subsequent order dismissing the subsequent IA No. 6000/2025

only compounds an issue. Even though no appeal has been preferred since

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 181 of 2026 an original order itself is formed to be unsustainable on facts. We choose to

set aside the same.

In conclusion the appeal is allowed. The Adjudicating Authority is

required to consider the petition under Section 7 on its own merits and in

accordance with law.

[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 181 of 2026