AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
16.10.2023: I.A. No. 4373 of 2023. This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 99 days in refiling the Appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that multiple defects were marked which took time in curing the defect hence time was taken in refiling the Appeal.
Sufficient cause shown. Refiling delay is condoned.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 21st April, 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected restoration application being I.A. No. 101 of 2022.
In the present case, Section 9 Application was dismissed noticing that CIRP has commenced against the Corporate Debtor on 13.12.2021. An Application was filed for restoration being I.A. No. 81 of 2022 by the Appellant praying for revival of the CIRP which stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.11.2022. Appellant thereafter filed a Restoration Application No. 101 of 2022 in which application, following prayers were made:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow the present application under Rule 11 of NCLT Rule, 2016; and permit the restoration/revival of the application Rest. A-81/2022 filed under rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.”
The said application came for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority on 21st April, 2023 and by order in para 6, this Restoration Application was rejected.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that prayers made in the Application I.A. No. 101 of 2022 were not same as was in I.A. No. 81 of 2022 and the Adjudicating Authority erroneously rejected the Application.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Adjudicating Authority has given reason in para 6 that the applicant did not challenge the Order before the Higher Authority hence the Application for the same is misconceived.
We have heard and considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
In I.A. No. 101 of 2022, the prayer was made to revive the Application I.A. No. 81 of 2022 which was dismissed for non-prosecution. We are not in agreement with the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority that prayer in both the Application are same. In Restoration Application 101 of 2023 prayer was for revival of I.A. No. 81 of 2022. It cannot be said that prayer in I.A. No. 81 of 2022 are same. We thus are of the view that sufficient ground was made out to allow restoration Application No. 101 of 2022 and revive I.A. No. 81 of 2022.
We allow the Appeal, set aside the Order, revive the I.A. No. 81 of 2022 which may be heard and decided by the Adjudicating Authority. Parties are at liberty to place the order for fixing a date.
The Appeal is disposed of.