Mr. Rohit Ramhari Ganage vs Idbi Bank Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Rohit Ramhari Ganage ...Appellant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd. Through Resolution Professional Mr. Indrajit Mukerjee ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Pranav Saigal and Mr. Anshul Rao, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

26.05.2026 This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

09.04.2026 passed in Restoration Application No. 30 of 2026. The application

filed under Section 95 was dismissed for non-appearance of the Counsel on

14.01.2026. Restoration Application No. 30 of 2026, which has been allowed

by the impugned order dated 09.04.2026, reads as follows:

"Restoration Application/30/2026-

1. The present Application is filed seeking restoration of C.P.(IB) No. 366(MB)/2023, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 14.01. 2026. It is submitted that the on 14.01.2026, due to a sudden medical emergency suffered by the Applicant's counsel, appearance could not be made, resulting in dismissal of the Petition. The non-appearance was neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but was caused by circumstances beyond control. The dismissal is based on a solitary instance of non- appearance, and if allowed to stand, would cause grave prejudice to the Applicant.

2. Considering that the request appears to be genuine and necessary, the matter is directed to be restored to its original number. Accordingly, Restoration Application No. 30/2026 is allowed. The CP may be listed on 03.06.2025."

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Applicant itself has

prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the Restoration Application since

the application was filed after 30 days.

3. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the

Appellant and perused the application.

4. The Application has been filed for Restoration to recall the order by

which application was dismissed for non-prosecution. It contains the

explanation as to why the application is filed with a delay of 21 days. The

reason given in the application is that the Applicant's Counsel had a sudden

medical emergency, due to which he could not appear and plead the matter

before Court. We do not find any ground on which this Tribunal can exercise

its Appellate Jurisdiction with respect to an order by which the restoration

application has been allowed.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that under Rule 48, when

application is filed beyond 30 days, it cannot be entertained. Rule 48 provides

as follows:

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

2 of 5 (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."

6. When we look into the Restoration Application, the affidavit filed by the

Applicant gives the reasons as to why the application was not filed within 30

days. In Para-3 of the application, following was stated:

"3. The captioned Company Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 14.01.2026. The present Restoration Application ought to have been filed within 30 days, i.e., on or before 13.02.2026; however, it is being filed on 06.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 21 days. The delay occurred as the case papers were required to be sent to the Applicant Bank's concerned office at Pune for necessary approvals and instructions before filing. The delay is bona fide and not intentional, and the Applicant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay of 21 days in filing the present Application."

7. Further in Para-14 of the application again details reasons have been

given, which is as follows:

"14. It is respectfully submitted that the captioned Company Petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution by order dated 14.01.2026. Under Rule 48(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, the present application ought to have been filed within 30 days, i.e., on or before 13.02.2026. However, the present Restoration Application is being filed on 06.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 21 days. The delay has occurred on account of administrative and 3 of 5 procedural reasons. The Applicant Bank's concerned office handling the matter is situated at Pune, and after obtaining knowledge of the dismissal order, the relevant case papers were required to be forwarded to the said office for internal examination, approvals, and instructions. The documents were thereafter returned to the undersigned counsel for preparation and filing of the present application. Owing to the time consumed in this process of transmission of records and obtaining necessary approvals, the present application could not be filed within the stipulated period. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to bona fide administrative reasons beyond the control of the Applicant. The Applicant therefore humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the present Restoration Application in the interest of justice."

8. In the present case where Restoration Application was filed beyond 30

days, there was sufficient explanation given by the Applicant that why delay

of 21 days in filing Restoration Application, the Court has proceeded and

allowed the Restoration Application. We find that sufficient cause has been

shown for the delay in filing the Restoration Application. Merely on the said

ground, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.

9. The application can be filed within 30 days, and any application filed

with delay, delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The

present application was filed with a delay of 21 days and there was sufficient

explanation for the delay of 21 days. We fail to find any fault with the order of

the Court allowing the Restoration Application. We are of the view that no

grounds have been made out to exercise Appellate Jurisdiction in interfering

with the order allowing the Restoration Application, when the application was

dismissed for non-prosecution.

4 of 5

10. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/Manu

5 of 5