Anupam Industries Limited vs M/S. M.R. Trading Co

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1072 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anupam Industries Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

M. R. Trading Company ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Charu Sachdev, Mr. Gulshan Kr. Sachdev, Advocates. For Respondent:

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

23.12.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Court - 2 by which Learned Adjudicating Authority allowed the restoration application filed for setting aside the dismissal order passed on 12.11.2020. There was delay of 27 days in filing the application which was also condoned and the main petition has been restored.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no good ground to condone the delay. He submits that the application for condonation of delay and restoration ought to have been decided separately.

3. We are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is perfectly in accordance with law and substantive justice has been done by the Adjudicating Authority in restoring the main petition and condoning delay of 27 days. No ground is made out to interfere with the judgment. Appeal is dismissed.

Cont'd..../ -2-

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he may be permitted to give citations of judgments in support of his argument. Such request could not be entertained after order has been passed and Appeal has been dismissed. Learned Counsel while making submissions may have cited judgments, if required. Such prayers are not to be entertained and the prayer of Learned Counsel is rejected.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has lastly contended that in para 5 of the Application for condonation of delay it was mentioned that the applicant is residing at West Bengal, hence was not local resident and it was difficult for the applicant to mange to file the present restoration application in the 30 days statutory time limit. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the impugned order it has been noted that Counsel for Applicant made statement with regard to his family members being suffering from COVID-19. We do not find any inconsistency with the Statement made in para 5 of the Application filed by the Applicant and statement of the counsel for the Applicant which was recorded in the impugned order.

6. In exercise of its discretion, the Adjudicating Authority condoned the delay in filing the application and restored the petition. We are of the view that no ground is made out to entertain this Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1072 of 2021