Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Sidhartha Builhome Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1191 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been dismissed for non-prosecution, and the applicant has shown sufficient cause for its non-appearance, the Adjudicating Authority's order may be set aside and the application restored to its original file, with the pleadings already complete and the respondent having appeared and filed its objection being relevant to the exercise of that discretion.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1191 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: Oriental Bank of Commerce ...Appellant Versus Sidhartha Builhome Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. Kailash Sharma and Mr. Sabhay Choudhary, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
ORDER
03.12.2019 This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant - 'Oriental
Bank of Commerce' against the order dated 3rd September, 2019 whereby the
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi. Court - III
rejected the application filed under Section 7 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code') by the 'Oriental Bank of Commerce' for
non-prosecution with the following observations:
"Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is present. CA No.
578/C-III/ND/2019 has been filed under Rule 48 (2)
of NCLT Rules seeking for restoration of the Application
which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order
dated 06.08.2019 as the reasons espoused by Ld.
Counsel for the Applicant/ petitioner in the said
Application is that due to heavy rain and massive
traffic jam, he was not able to be present before this
Tribunal which led to the dismissal of the main
Company petition for non-prosecution. However,
based on the reasons as narrated in the said -2-
application, we are not convinced as it is seen from
record of proceedings, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate
Debtor was present."
Heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant and Mr. Prateek Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent. We are satisfied that the Appellant has made out a case for the
restoration of the application which was filed by it. Further we have noticed that
the pleadings has also been completes and the Respondent having appeared and
filed its objection. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated
3rd September, 2019 and restore the C.P. No. (IB) - 717(ND)/2019 to its original
file of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. Court - III. The Adjudicating
Authority will now issue notice to the Respondent and fix the date 'for Admission'
of the application filed under Section 7. Parties will appear before the
Adjudicating Authority on 18th December, 2019 at 10.30 A.M. and bring this
order to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
/ns/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1191 of 2019
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