NCLAT Allows Restoration Application in Company Dispute — Emphasizes Need for Expeditious Hearing. The NCLAT set aside the dismissal of the restoration application, highlighting that the appellant should be given another opportunity to argue the case on merits, as the pleadings were complete.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against an order dated 18.03.2026 by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, which dismissed Restoration Application No. 10 of 2026 on the grounds of non-compliance and prolonged pendency of the company petition since 2018. The NCLT noted the absence of the appellant and the non-submission of Vakalatnama as significant issues. The appellant's counsel argued that the adjournments were not due to the appellant's actions but were granted by the NCLT for various reasons, including technical glitches. On 18.02.2026, the appellant's counsel sought to file the Vakalatnama but was denied due to past conduct. The NCLAT, upon reviewing the submissions, found that the appellant deserved another chance to present their case, as the pleadings were complete. The NCLAT set aside the impugned order and directed the NCLT to hear the matter on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months, while also imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant to be paid to the respondents. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were closed.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Restoration of Application - Justification for Dismissal - Companies Act, 2013 - The NCLAT set aside the dismissal of the restoration application, emphasizing that the appellant should be given another opportunity to argue the case on merits, as the pleadings were complete and the matter was ripe for final argument. The court noted that the previous dismissals were due to adjournments caused by the NCLT and not solely the appellant's conduct. Held that the matter should be heard expeditiously (Paras 6-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the dismissal of the restoration application and the company petition for want of prosecution was justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The NCLAT set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 and allowed Restoration Application No. 10/2026. The NCLT was directed to hear the matter on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondents within a week.

Law Points

  • Restoration of application
  • adjournments
  • compliance with procedural requirements
  • merits of the case
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 57

Company Appeal (AT) No. 197 of 2026

2026-05-21

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra

Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Ms. Sugandha Batra, Ms. Taruna, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mr. Shubh Gautam, Mr. Vansh Bhatnagar, Mr. Naman Singh Baggar, Ms. Kashish Mathur

PG Holiday Inn Pvt. Ltd.

Bencomar Hotels (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of restoration application and company petition.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the application and hearing on merits.

Filing Reason

Dismissal of the restoration application for want of prosecution.

Previous Decisions

The company petition was pending since 2018, with multiple adjournments granted.

Issues

Justification for dismissal of restoration application Right to be heard on merits

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that adjournments were granted by the NCLT, not due to their conduct. The appellant's counsel sought to file Vakalatnama but was denied permission.

Ratio Decidendi

The NCLAT emphasized the importance of allowing parties the opportunity to present their case on merits, particularly when procedural delays were not solely attributable to them.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal stands allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the Respondents, within a week from today. The Ld. NCLT is requested to hear the matter on merit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the dismissal of Restoration Application No. 10 of 2026 by the NCLT, which had dismissed the company petition for want of prosecution after a prolonged period of pendency.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit — No Right to Property Established. The court found that the property was given to Ramamma for maintenance, which became absolute under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955, thus denying t...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Accused In-Laws in Quashing Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC for Dowry and Unnatural Offences Due to Vague Allegations. FIR Allegations Against Relatives Found General and Non-Specific, Not Making Out Prima Facie Case...