Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed against an order allowing the restoration of a company petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the applicant's counsel. The dismissal occurred on 14.01.2026, and the restoration application was filed on 06.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 21 days. The applicant explained that the delay was caused by a sudden medical emergency affecting the counsel and the need for administrative approvals from the applicant bank's office in Pune. The Tribunal considered the reasons provided and found them to be genuine, allowing the restoration application. The appellant's counsel argued that the application was filed beyond the 30-day limit set by Rule 48 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, but the Tribunal noted that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no grounds to interfere with the order allowing the restoration application.
Headnote
A) Company Law - Restoration of Applications - Condonation of Delay - National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, Rule 48 - The Tribunal allowed the restoration application despite it being filed beyond the 30-day limit, citing sufficient cause for the delay due to administrative reasons. The court found no grounds to exercise appellate jurisdiction to interfere with the restoration order (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the order allowing the restoration application filed beyond the stipulated period.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed, and the order allowing the restoration application was upheld, as sufficient cause for the delay was established.
Law Points
- Restoration of applications
- Condonation of delay
- Non-appearance
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Sufficient cause
Case Details
2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 167
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 989 of 2026
Justice Ashok Bhushan, Barun Mitra
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Pranav Saigal, Mr. Anshul Rao
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against the dismissal of a company petition for non-prosecution.
Remedy Sought
Restoration of the company petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
Filing Reason
The applicant's counsel had a sudden medical emergency, causing non-appearance.
Previous Decisions
The company petition was dismissed on 14.01.2026 for non-prosecution.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the order allowing the restoration application.
Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the restoration application.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant's counsel argued that the delay was due to a medical emergency and administrative reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the application was filed beyond the 30-day limit but found sufficient cause for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal upheld the restoration of the application based on sufficient cause for delay, emphasizing the importance of allowing genuine requests for restoration to ensure justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Application is filed seeking restoration of C.P.(IB) No. 366(MB)/2023, which was dismissed for non - prosecution by order dated 14.01.2026.
We find that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the Restoration Application.
Procedural History
The application was dismissed for non-appearance on 14.01.2026. A restoration application was filed on 06.03.2026, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The appeal against this order was subsequently filed.
Acts & Sections
- National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016: Rule 48
- Limitation Act: Section 5
