Opiniofi Technologies Private Limited ... vs Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF: Opiniofi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Under Voluntary Liquidation) ...Appellant

Versus

--- ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked

For Respondent : None

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

03.04.2024 This is an application praying for condonation of 13 days'

delay. The order was passed on 23.11.2023 and the appeal has been filed on

05.01.2024. The delay in filling the application is only 13 days, since it was

e-filed on 05.01.2024. It is stated that the Appellant is not a resident of Delhi

and he is from Bangalore, the time was taken in engaging a counsel and

coordinating the transfer of papers.

Cause shown sufficient, delay is condoned.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed against

the order dated 23.11.2023 by which order Restoration No. A190/2023 filed

by the Appellant has been rejected. The voluntarily liquidation proceeding

were initiated as liquidator filed a petition which was dismissed for non-

appearance on 13.10.2023. The Appellant filed an application for recall of the

Order A190/2023, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The Reason given in paragraph 5-6 at page 230 of the appeal paper book is

reproduced herein below:

"...

5. The Petition was listed before this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority on various occasions in 2022 and 2023 but could not be taken up due to paucity of time. On 13 October 2023, the matter was called out, but the Liquidator was unable to appear through video conferencing due to a technological failure at his end.

6. It is stated that the non-appearance of the Liquidator on 13 October 2023 is solely attributable to the aforesaid technological failure and for no other reason. The said non- appearance was inadvertent and neither wanton nor deliberate. Any unwanted inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority on account of the aforesaid technological failure is deeply regretted...."

The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application observing that

the Appellant has also not appeared on previous occasion on 10.08.2022.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that sufficient explanation was

given for non-appearance on 13.10.2023. The Adjudicating Authority ought

to have recalled the order dismissing the Application for non-prosecution and

the issue before the Adjudicating Authority was not the non-appearance on

10.08.2022.

We have considered submission of the Appellant and perused the

records.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 191 of 2024 & I.A. No. 636 of 2024 2 of 3 There is no respondent to the appeal, this was voluntary liquidation.

The notice was issued by this Tribunal on 08.02.2024, but no one has

appeared on filed any objection. We are of the view that the grounds given in

paragraph 5 & 6 for recall of the order dismissing the application for non-

prosecution are sufficient for recall of the order. The Adjudicating Authority

committed error in rejecting restoration application. Appeal is allowed. Order

dated 23.11.2023 is set aside. The Petition IB-585(ND)/2022 is revived before

the Adjudicating Authority to be heard and decided accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/kam

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 191 of 2024 & I.A. No. 636 of 2024 3 of 3