M/S Ganuchi Fashions Private Limited ... vs Anil Kohli & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 190 of 2026 & I.A. No. 697, 698 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Ganuchi Fashions Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Anil Kohli & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shivam Thakkar, Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocates for R-2. Ms. Ritu Aggarwal, Advocate for IRP. Mr. Anant Jain, Mr. Aditya Gauri, Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.09.2026: The proceedings of the Company Petition, being C.P.(IB)

No. 307 of 2019, have been dismissed for want of prosecution on 01.09.2025

owing to the absence of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Seeking its recall,

the appellant has filed a Restoration Application, being Restoration

Application No. 97 of 2025, by filing the same before the Registry of the Ld.

NCLT on 08.10.2025. On a normal determination of the period of limitation

as per the provisions contained under Rule 48 (2) of the National Company

Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, the Restoration Application ought to have been

preferred within a period of 30 days as prescribed therein the rules. But the

appellant has filed the Restoration Application with a delay of one day. And

that has been derived as to be the ground by the Ld. Tribunal, for rejecting

the Restoration Application, observing thereof that since it has been

Cont'd.../ -2-

preferred beyond 30 days, the same is not maintainable, and it was

dismissed due to being barred by limitation.

2. Against this impugned order of 29.10.2025 rejecting the restoration application, the appellant is before us.

3. The Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has opposed the motion of

appeal, contending that no leniency is to be extended to the appellant for the

reason, being their conduct and the manner of taking the proceedings before

the Ld. NCLT itself was showing lack of diligence in pursuing the

proceedings, as they had not been diligently participating in the same, and

there had been earlier absences too.

4. So far as this argument is concerned, we are of the considered view

that when a particular application is taken up for consideration before the

Ld. NCLT, the Court or any Tribunal for that matter, the adjudicatory body

will have to confine itself to the application itself that is before it. And the

past conduct of the appellant or his dereliction of non-appearance earlier

should not be taken into consideration, or be taken as to be the basis for

deciding the restoration application. This argument is extended by the Ld.

Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is not acceptable by us.

5. Considering the aspect of limitation, there cannot be any dispute

pertaining to the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 48 of the

National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, as it contemplates 30 days'

time, being prescribed therein for filing of a Restoration Application, but

owing to the fact that the statute under Rule 48 of the National Company

Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 itself has not contemplated any restriction in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 190 of 2026 -3-

extension of the time period in that eventuality, a satisfaction has to be

taken into consideration from the content of the Restoration Application

itself, and since herein there happens to be only a delay of 06 days in filing

the Restoration Application. Besides considering the application and its

pleading, a pragmatic view ought to have been taken in order to enable the

appellant to have his remedy resorted to on the merits of the matter rather

than on technicalities of restoration.

6. In that view of the matter, in order to meet the ends of justice, the

impugned order of 29.10.2025 would stand quashed, and the Restoration

Application No. 97 of 2025 would stand allowed. The order of dismissal in

default dated 01.09.2025 would stand recalled, the company petition is

directed to be restored to its original number.

7. It is hoped and trusted that henceforth the appellant and its counsel

would diligently participate in the proceedings before the Ld. Tribunal, and

considering the fact that the Company Petition happens to be of 2019, the

Ld. Tribunal is requested to make all efforts to decide the same as

expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from today. Subject

to the above, the company appeal stands allowed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) SA/rr Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 190 of 2026