Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Sandeep Goel

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal17 September 2025Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution where the applicant's proxy counsel, present on the date fixed, sought only a short adjournment, and where the applicant had indicated that some prayers had become infructuous and that instructions were being obtained on the remaining prayers. The reasoning is that such circumstances do not establish disinterest in pursuing the application, so a finding of non-prosecution on that basis cannot stand and the restoration application should be revived in the interest of justice, subject to no further adjournment being taken.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1404 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5487 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Sandeep Goel, ...Respondents (RP of Corporate Debtor) & Anr.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Mr. Adarsh Srivastava and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.09.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order dated

10.07.2025 which reads as follows:-

"ORDER

New Restoration Application /57/ND/2025

Ms. Jayati Arora, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the Applicant is present through VC. This Application has been filed by the Applicant under Rule 11 of the IBC, 2016 for restoration of IA/1858/ND/2024 in IB/901/ND/2020.

Ld. Proxy Counsel for the applicant seeks short adjournment. Since the main counsel is not appearing in the present application and proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks short adjournment, it seems that applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter. Therefore, IA/1858/ND/2025 is dismissed for want of prosecution."

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that observation in the order that

"applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter" is not correct. On the date fixed only short adjournment was asked for by the proxy counsel who was

present. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/SRA pointed out that by earlier

order dated 09.06.2025 the application IA/1858/ND/2024 was dismissed for

non-prosecution. Appellant submits that he has already complied with the

order by filing amended memo and had the appellant given the opportunity to

explain, he would have explained his restoration application 57/ND/2025.

Counsel for the respondent further submitted that in the application there

were four prayers and applicant has already indicated to the court that

prayer-1 & 2 have become infructuous and he took time to obtain

instructions for prayer- 3 & 4 and the matter was pending for the said

instructions.

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant shall address his

application before the Adjudicating Authority and inform also about the

instructions which he has obtained.

3. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends

of justice be served in reviving the RA/57/ND/2025. The order dated

10.07.2025 is set aside. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant

shall not take any further adjournment in the RA/57/ND/2025. With the

above, appeal is disposed of.

4. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits

of the applications IA/57/ND/2025 as well as IA/1858/ND/2024.

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1404 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5487 of 2025

5. It shall be open for the parties to request the Adjudicating Authority for

fixing the date in the Restoration Application.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1404 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5487 of 2025

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