9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1386 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking restoration of petition - condonation of delay in filing petition - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - There is no sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant for the purpose of allowing the present appeal. Without going into the merit of the case, it is observed that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved: Appeal against order for restoration of petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to delay in filing the application for restoration.
Summary: 1. The appeal was filed against the order dated 28th March, 2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench-III, New Delhi, dismissing an application for restoration of a petition. 2. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the application for restoration was filed after the period of limitation provided under Rule 48(2) of NCLT Rules, 2016, without any application seeking condonation of delay, leading to its dismissal. 3. The Appellant's counsel argued that the Authorized Representative of the Appellant Company, a 75-year-old woman suffering from severe illness, was dependent on counsel for the petition status. The previous counsel did not respond promptly, resulting in the dismissal for non-prosecution. The Appellant, upon learning of the situation, filed a restoration application. 4. The Respondent's counsel opposed the appeal, stating that the Appellant provided no cogent reasons for the 150-day delay in filing the restoration application, nor applied for condonation of delay. The non-appearance of the Appellant was noted in previous orders, leading to dismissal. 5. The Respondent's counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that condonation of delay cannot be granted without proper grounds provided by the Appellant. 6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found the reasons given by the Appellant insufficient to allow the appeal. 7. The Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant for allowing the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. 8. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
