Armour Security (India) Private ... vs Ambience Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1270 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a restoration application seeks revival of an earlier application dismissed for non-prosecution, its prayer is to be read as seeking revival of that earlier application, so that the earlier and restoration applications are not to be treated as having the same prayer merely because they are connected; a Tribunal rejecting restoration on the ground that the prayers are the same, without finding that the prayers in fact coincide, commits an error, and sufficient ground exists to restore the dismissed application where the restoration application is confined to reviving it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Armour Security (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Ambience Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan G., Mr. Ankur Aggarwal, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Varsha Himatsingka, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. V Anush Raajan, Mr. Pradyumn Yadav, Advocates
ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. Sufficient cause shown. Refiling delay is condoned.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
5. 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. 2
6. 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."
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. We have heard and considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1270 of 2023 3
11. 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.
12. 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.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1270 of 2023
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free