9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1573 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCondonation of delay of 38 days in filing restoration application - HELD THAT - On all the occasions, the applications are/were dismissed for not taking steps by the advocate, as stated by the Applicant. Since it is a settled law that due to the fault of the advocate, the applicant/petitioner should not suffer, therefore, there are no impediment in restoring the CP(IB) No. 473 of 2018 by restoring IA No. 414 of 2019 and IA No. 176 of 2019 by condoning the delay of 38 days as prayed for in IA No. 415 of 2019. Application is restored by condoning the delay.
Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing restoration applications under NCLT Rules, 2016. Analysis: The Applicant filed IA No. 415 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing IA No. 414 of 2019 for restoration of CP(IB) No. 473 of 2018, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Applicant had previously filed IA No. 176 of 2019 for restoration, which was also dismissed. The subsequent application, IA No. 414 of 2019, was not filed within the limitation period, leading to the need for condonation of delay. The applications were dismissed due to the fault of the advocate, which the Petitioner was unaware of initially. The Tribunal considered the provisions of NCLT Rules, 2016 and the Companies Act, 2013, specifically Section 424(2) applicable to IBC matters, granting the restoration of CP(IB) No. 473 of 2018 by restoring IA No. 414 of 2019 and IA No. 176 of 2019 by condoning the delay of 38 days as prayed for in IA No. 415 of 2019. The Tribunal noted that the applications were dismissed due to the advocate's fault, and the Applicant should not suffer as a result. Citing the powers vested in the Tribunal under the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal found no impediment in restoring the applications. Referring to precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized adopting a lenient view in cases of condonation of delay. Consequently, the applications filed by the Petitioner were allowed, and the previous dismissal orders were set aside. CP(IB) No. 473 of 2018 was restored to file, with a cost imposed on the Applicant. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the restoration of CP(IB) No. 473 of 2018 by condoning the delay in filing the restoration applications, considering the fault of the advocate, relevant legal provisions, and the lenient approach advocated by the courts in such matters. The applications were allowed, and the orders of dismissal were set aside, restoring the main petition with costs imposed.
|
