NCLAT held that the burden of proving, the service of summons, is on the petitioner /1st Respondent /Bank /Financial Creditor. In law, if a registered summons / notice is sent to a Respondent / Defendant, at his / her correct address, the presumption of service, arises, and an ex-parte decree, will not be set aside. An application, under Section 7 of the Code, 2016, is not to be rejected, merely on technical ground. In law, a letter of balance confirmation, extends the period of limitation. A Judicial Discretion, is to be regulated, as per known rules of law, and not on mere impulse or whim of a person, for whom, it is given on the hypothesis that he is circumspect. Any person, who is in law, entitled to stake a claim for payment, has no prohibition, under the Code, 2016, to prefer the same, by means of an application/petition. The prevalent of default, is a sine qua non, for admitting, an application / petition, under the Code, 2016, in respect of the insolvency proceedings.