AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi wherein RA-61/ND/2025 was dismissed. The impugned order notes as under:
“In our opinion, the Applicant is not fair even in narrating the reasons for non-appearance. When the Counsel for the Applicant could not join the hearing virtually, it could be fair on the part of the Applicant to state that on the account of fault in the technical system at his end the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant was not able to appear and participat in proceedings. Nevertheless, an impression is created in para 3 of the application, that the Counsel for the Applicant appeared before this Tribunal. Similarly, we are unable to appreciate that if the Counsel for the Applicant was even watching the proceeding on 13.05.2025, then how the next date noted by the Ld. Counsel could be 28.08.2025 and not 26.08.2025. From Para 3-4 of the application, it is clear that lapses on behalf of the Applicant are multiple and cannot be ignored. Not to talk at the situation which prevented his appearance on two successive dates being beyond his control, the applicant was not even serious in pursuing the appeal.”
It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant the appeal was listed on 15.10.2024 where the Ld. NCLT had noted objections qua maintainability of the appeal and the appellant was asked to clarify on such -2-issues. The matter was thereafter listed on 20.12.2024 and the appellants were directed to file affidavit qua such issue of maintainability. Such affidavit was filed and thereafter, on 10.02.2025, notice was issued in the appeal viz. Appeal-175/ND/2024.
It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant the matter was listed again on 13.05.2025 and though the proxy counsel was present virtually but could not join due to technical issues and even noted a wrong next date of hearing i.e. 28.08.2025 instead of 26.08.2025.
The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has shown us a WhatsApp massage sent on 13.05.2025 by the proxy counsel on office group where the next date of hearing of such appeal was shown as 28.08.2025. The matter, however, was listed on 26.08.2025 and since none was present on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The appellant herein filed a restoration petition viz. New RA-61/ND/2025 with the following grounds for restoration, as given para 3 and 4 of the application, as under:
“3.It is humbly submitted that the appeal then was then listed before Hon'ble Tribunal on 13.05.2025 at Item no. 209. On the said date, the Advocate for the Appellant appeared before this Hon'ble Tribunal through Video Conferencing (VC) but due to sudden fluctuating of network the issue persisted, the audio and video connection was intermittent, thereby giving an impression that there was no representation on behalf of appellant and thus, in lieu of the same, this Hon'ble Tribunal deferred the captioned appeal to 26.08.2025. However, since there was a connectivity issue, Advocate heard and noted the date as 28.08.2025 instead of26.08.2025.
4.That appeal further was last listed on 26.08.2025 when it was deferred to the next date by this Hon'ble Tribunal. However, due -3-to an inadvertent clerical error noting the date as 28.08.2025 the Appellant could not able to attend the hearing on 26.08.2025. Consequently, the counsel for the appellant could not appear on the correct date, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for nonappearance and want of prosecution. The absence was thus neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to a bona fide inadvertent mistake in recording the next date due to poor connection. The photograph of office diary is here by annexed to prove an honest mistake as the date was wrongly noted. True copy of the snapshot of the Diary are annexed as ANNEXURE A-3.”
It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant since absence of the appellant on 26.08.2025 was purely unintentional and was due to wrong noting of the next date of hearing, as is evident from the WhatsApp message raised on 13.05.2025 and also from the case diary of Ld. Counsel for the appellant of dated 28.08.2025 wherein this case is shown at serial no. 4, at page 144 of the Appeal Paper Book, hence considering these above facts, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order subject to payment of cost of Rs.
25,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks from today. The appeal be listed and be heard on merits by the Ld. NCLT.
This appeal is disposed of in terms of the above. Pending application(s) viz I.A. No. 944 and 945 of 2026 are also disposed of.