2021 (11) TMI 870 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of petition - dismissal on the grounds of default and non-prosecution - non-appearance of petitioner in spite of being notices issued - HELD THAT - Since, the Hon ble High Court has only granted interim stay with regard to remittance of fine as ordered in TIA/09/KOB/2019 and given 30 days time to file an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act 2013, before the Hon ble Appellate Authority, without obeying that order of the Hon ble High Court, the petitioner filed a Restoration Petition before this Tribunal to restore TCP/13/KOB/2019, that too by the same person who was restrained from representing in that matter, by this Tribunal. The order in TIA/9/KOB/2019 was passed on merits giving both sides ample opportunities to present their cases. Both the parties were heard extensively and only after that the order in TIA was passed. The applicant should have obeyed the order dated 29.09.2021 of the Hon ble High Court, if he is really aggrieved by the orders of this Tribunal dated 30.12.2019 TIA/9/KOB/2019. We do not find any substance in this application filed for restoration of TCP No. 13/KOB/2019. Restoration application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-appearance of the petitioner leading to dismissal of Company Petition.
2. Application for restoration of the dismissed Company Petition.
3. Delay in filing restoration application and its condonation.

Issue 1: Non-appearance of the petitioner leading to dismissal of Company Petition

The Tribunal noted that the petitioner failed to appear for multiple hearings despite notices being issued. The petitioner's company was found to be existing at the registered address provided by the Registrar of Companies, Kerala. The Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition for default and non-prosecution due to the continuous absence of the petitioner, leading to the need for subsequent legal actions.

Issue 2: Application for restoration of the dismissed Company Petition

The applicant, aged 75 and facing health issues, claimed to have vigilantly followed the case until March 2020 when the nationwide lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic restricted his movement. The applicant alleged that he was unaware of the dismissal of the case until March 2021. Subsequently, a lawyer was consulted, and a restoration application was filed with a plea to condone the delay. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the restoration application, emphasizing that the applicant should have complied with the High Court's order if genuinely aggrieved by the Tribunal's previous decisions.

Issue 3: Delay in filing restoration application and its condonation

The Tribunal dismissed the Restoration Application and the subsequent application to condone the delay in filing it. The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant was barred from representing the company until the disposal of the Company Petition, as per the earlier order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the question of condoning the delay or accepting any application from the applicant did not arise, leading to the dismissal of the delay condonation application as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Restoration Application and the delay condonation application, citing the applicant's failure to comply with previous orders and lack of merit in the applications. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and court orders in litigation matters.