Blanket Hospitality Ventures Pvt Ltd vs Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF: Blanket Hospitality Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus --- ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Namitha Mathews and Mr. Pulkit Malhotra, Advocate. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.02.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2025 in

Restoration Application 92(MB)2025 by which the Adjudicating Authority by

the impugned order has rejected the restoration application 92(MB)2025. The

order passed by Adjudicating Authority is as follows:-

"ORDER RST.A 92/ 2025

1. This application has been filed by the Applicant seeking the following prayers:

a. Condone the delay of 159 days in filing the present Application;

b. Allow the present Restoration Application and consequently, restore C.P. (IB)/616 (MB)/2020 titled 'Blanket Hospitality Ventures Private Limited' and pass necessary Order(s); and c. Any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is stated that the CP 616 of 2025 was dismissed for non-

prosecution vide an order dated 05.05.2025. It is also seen that prior to that none appeared for the Applicant on 14.02.2025, on 26.02.2025 and on 28.03.2025 and hence, this CP was dismissed.

3. The present application has been filed belatedly with delay of 159 days.

4. There is no merit in the present application, and, therefore, the present application in CP 616 of 2020 is dismissed."

3. The appellant case is that the appellant has filed Section 10 application

which came to be heard and reserved for orders on 06.05.2024. It is

submitted that after several months the application was listed for clarification

by the Adjudicating Authority which unfortunately was not noticed by the

counsel for the appellant and no one could appear and ultimately the came to

be dismissed on 05.05.2025 and application for restoration has been filed on

10.11.2025, giving in detail the sequence of the events and cause for delay

and non-appearance, which has not been considered by Adjudicating

Authority.

4. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and

perused the record.

5. Para-3 & 4 of the order indicate that Adjudicating Authority has not

adverted to reasons given by the appellant in the restoration application

explaining the non-appearance and the delay in filing the application. We are

of the view that ends of justice be served in setting aside the order dated

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 253 of 2026 08.12.2025 and reviving the restoration application 92(MB)2025 for fresh

consideration.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The

restoration application 92(MB)2025 is revive for fresh consideration before the

Adjudicating Authority which may be heard and decided in accordance with

law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 253 of 2026