Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 12 NCLAT CK 0026

Global Service vs Arabtec Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 14 December 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Arun Baroka, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1567 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 348 words
1.

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2023 by which the application for restoration being RA No.115/2023 has been rejected. Appellant filed an application under Section 9 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.01.2023 and after expiry of six and a half months, the Appellant filed application for restoration, on which the Court passed following order on 19.07.2023:

“ORDER

IA-3673/2023: Issue notice to the Respondent returnable on 16.08.2023. The Applicant undertakes to serve notice upon the Respondent through all modes viz, registered post, speed post and E-mail. Affidavit of service be filed within one week. The reply may be filed by the Respondent within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 16.08.2023.

RA-115/2023: List along with IA-3673/2023. The RA would be considered after the order in IA-3673/2023 is passed. List on 16.08.2023.”

2.

Case was taken on 16.08.2023. The Adjudicating Authority observed that affidavit of service was not filed and proceeded to dismiss the application on said ground. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was traveling on the date when order was passed, hence, affidavit could not be filed. When the Court has directed on 19.07.2023 to file affidavit of service within one week, Appellant was to comply the order. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly after noticing the sequence of events and facts of the case rejected the restoration application.

3.

We are of the view that under I&B Code process has to be completed in a time bound manner and the manner in which the Appellant was prosecuting the application did not require any indulgence of the Adjudicating Authority.

4.

We are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application for restoration. There is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

5.

We make it clear that it shall be open for the Appellant to take such other legal proceeding for its dues as permissible in law.