Gar Infra Reality Private Limited vs Registrar Of Companies

Gar Infra Reality Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Registrar of Companies ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents : ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.12.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated

10.09.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi. Vide this impugned order, an

application for recall of the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Appeal No.

171/252/ND/2022 was disposed of and was dismissed.

2. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, the Appeal No.

171/252/ND/2022 was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was filed for

restoration of the name of the company in the Register of Companies. The

Order dated 02.12.2022, clearly indicates none had appeared on behalf of the

appellant for two consecutive dates, hence the appeal was dismissed for non-

prosecution.

3. We have also gone through the impugned order wherein Rule 48 of the

NCLT Rules, 2016 is quoted as under:

"48. Consequence of non-appearance of applicant.- (1) Where on the date fixed for hearing of the petition or application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant does not appear when the petition or the application is called for -2-

hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the application for default or hear and decide it on merit.

(2) Where the petition or application has been dismissed for default and the applicant files an application within thirty days from the date of dismissal and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the petition or the application was called for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order restoring the same:

Provided that where the case was disposed of on merits the decision shall not be re-opened."

4. Admittedly, the order in appeal is of dated 02.12.2022 and the

application for recall was filed after more than 2 years and 10 months. The

impugned order notes there was no mistake apparent on the face of record in

passing of the order dated 02.12.2022, hence there was no reason why the

order dated 02.12.2022 be recalled, in filing application for recall after more

than 2 years and 10 months. No satisfactory reason for delay was given in the

application for condonation of delay. Losing connection with the Ld. Counsel;

communication gaps and illness (undisclosed) were not considered sufficient

enough to condone the long delay of approx. 3 years. Thus, we are not inclined

to issue notice in the appeal.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), I.A. No.

7496 of 2025 and I.A. No. 7497 of 2025 are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

Ram N./Ravi R.