9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of the Code only on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant then the application for recalling of the order dated 20.09.2022 could have been maintainable but the facts are otherwise because the order dated 20.09.2022 was passed on merits by the Adjudicating Authority holding that the petition under Section 9 is not maintainable as it has failed to cross the threshold limit as per Notification dated 24.03.2020 issued by the MCA. This order could have been challenged by way of an appeal by the Appellant before the Appellate Authority but the Appellant did not choose to file the appeal rather filed a frivolous application for restoration of the petition, may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istry of Corporate Affairs vide notification dated 24.03.2020. 3. In view of the above notification, this Bench on perusal of records noticed that the Company Petition was filed below the threshold limit as prescribed under the Code. Hence, this Bench is of the considered view that the Petition filed u/s 9 of the Code is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to approach any forum as per Law. 4. CP (IB)/387(MB)/2021 is dismissed with no costs. 5. Records be consigned to the record room. 2. Thereafter, instead of challenging the order dated 20.09.2022 by way of an appeal as provided under Section 61 of the Code, the Appellant filed an application allegedly in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is a case where the petition has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution by the Appellant, therefore, the application for restoration of the petition was filed by the Appellant seeking recall of the order dated 20.09.2022 and afresh hearing in the matter to pursue the petition filed under Section 9 of the Code. In the end, it is submitted that even if the Appellant has not filed the appeal against the order dated 20.09.2022 and the limitation has already expired yet this appeal may be considered to have been filed against the order dated 23.03.2023 only in which there is a delay of 7 days. 6. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. Facts are not in dispute, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
