Central Bank Of India Limited vs Mrs. Neetu Agarwal

IN THE MATTER OF: Central Bank of India Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Neetu Agarwal ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kashish Chadha, Mr. Devang Shrotriya & Mr. Aditya Shah, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Parikh & Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocates for R-1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

14.08.2026 Heard Shri Kashish Chadha, Learned Counsel appearing for

the Appellant, and Shri Rishabh Parikh, Learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent, and perused the records.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, a Financial Creditor,

challenging the order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court No. 2) passed with regard to

Restoration Application No. 49 of 2026 in CP(IB) No. 17 of 2025, whereby the

Restoration Application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed for non-

prosecution.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that earlier a petition under

Section 95 of the Code being CP(IB) No. 17 of 2025, was filed by the Appellant.

However, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated

25.03.2026, and to recall/restore the said order and Restoration Application No. 49

of 2026 was moved by the Appellant Bank with the prayer to restore the aforesaid

Company Petition.

1|Page

4. The said restoration application was listed for the first time on 13.05.2026,

on which date no effective order was passed and the matter was adjourned to

10.06.2026. On 10.06.2026, again the matter was not heard and the same was

listed for 11.06.2026, where on the impugned order has been passed dismissing

the restoration application for non-prosecution.

5. It is further submitted that on 13.05.2026 and 10.06.2026, the Appellant

Bank was represented by its Advocate, namely, Shri Ojas Golay, who appeared

through VC and personally respectively and it was only on 11.06.2026 the counsel

for the Applicant/Appellant could not remain present before the Tribunal and the

impugned order has been passed.

6. It is further submitted that, in the aforesaid factual matrix, the impugned

order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for disposal of

the Restoration Application of the Appellant on merits.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, very fairly, submits, under

instructions, that he has no objection if the Appeal filed by the Appellant is

allowed.

8. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and having perused the

record, it appears to be an admitted situation that, after the filing of the

Restoration Application for the purpose of restoring/recalling the order dated

25.03.2026, an application for restoration being Restoration Application No. 49 of

2026 was moved by the Appellant and the same was placed before the Learned

Adjudicating Authority on 13.05.2026 and 10.06.2026, and on both the occasions

no effective hearing could take place and on both these dates the Appellant Bank

was represented by their counsel.

2|Page

9. It was only on 11.06.2026 the Appellant was not represented and an

explanation has been given that though counsel for the Appellant was present,

however, the attendance was not marked and the impugned order has been passed.

10. We are on the considered view that out of 3 times the Restoration

Application was listed before the Learned Adjudicating Authority on two such

occasions the counsel for the Appellant was present before the Learned

Adjudicating Authority and no effective hearing could take place. It was only on one

occasion i.e., was 11.06.2026, the Appellant according to Tribunal was not present,

however, an explanation has been given by the Appellant that though the counsel

was present but could not marked its presence, when impugned order has been

passed.

11. Having considered all the facts of this case, we notice that it is only on one

occasion the Appellant was not represented before Learned Adjudicating Authority,

when impugned order has been passed. Thus, it appears to be a case where an

opportunity may be provided to the Appellant to contest the 'lis' before the Learned

Adjudicating Authority.

12. Thus, in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of

the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, the impugned order

passed by Learned Adjudicating Authority is hereby set aside. Restoration

Application No. 49 of 2026, is hereby revived on the board of the Learned

Adjudicating Authority, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

13. The parties shall appear before the Learned Adjudicating Authority on

31.08.2026.

14. There shall be no order as to cost.

15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

3|Page

16. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) KS/MR

4|Page