Pg Holiday Inn Private Limited vs Bencomar Hotel Goa & Ors

PG Holiday Inn Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Bencomar Hotels (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Ms. Sugandha Batra, Ms. Taruna, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mr. Shubh Gautam, Mr. Vansh Bhatnagar, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Naman Singh Baggar, Ms. Kashish Mathur, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

21.05.2026: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated

18.03.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench wherein Restoration

Application No. 10 of 2026 was dismissed on the ground the company petition

was pending since 2018 and compliances were not done even after a lapse of

about 8 years. It was also recorded not only the non-submission of

Vakalatnama on or before 18.02.2026 was an issue but petitioner's absence

was also not bonafide.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, however, has referred to various

orders viz 10.07.2024 wherein the erstwhile ld. counsel(s) for the Appellant

appeared and withdrew Vakalatnama, as had not received any instructions

from the Appellant and thus, was allowed to withdraw Vakalatnama and the

matter was adjourned to 18.09.2024. Further on 18.09.2024, the matter was -2-

adjourned to 20.11.2024 and then various dates were given, allegedly, due to

paucity of time and technical glitch.

3. On 18.02.2026, Ms. Neha D. Souza, Adv. appeared through VC and

sought accommodation to place on record her Vakalatnama, but was not

permitted to do so due to past conduct of the appellant and as such the

company petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The same reasons

are given in the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 dismissing the restoration

application.

4. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant

never took adjournments as held in the impugned order. It is alleged the

matter was adjourned on numerous dates by the Ld. NCLT itself either due to

paucity of time or on technical issue and when on 18.02.2026 the matter came

up before Ld. NCLT, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution,

despite appearance of Adv. Neha D. Souza through VC and requested for some

more time to file her Vakalatnama.

5. It is the submission of the Appellant Ms. Neha D. Souza, Adv. though

had obtained the Vakalatnama but needed permission to file the same. It is

argued the delay cannot be attributed to the conduct of the appellant alone

as on numerous dates the matter was adjourned due to paucity of time.

6. Considering the submissions made, it would be appropriate if the

Appellant is given one more chance to argue the case on merits since we are

informed, the pleadings in the present matter have since been completed and

the matter is ripe for final argument.

-3-

7. Thus, for reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 is

set aside and thus Restoration Application No. 10/2026 is hereby allowed.

Consequently, the order dated 18.02.2026 is set aside. The Ld. NCLT is

requested to hear the matter on merit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably

within three months. We hope both the parties shall not take unnecessary

adjournments.

8. The appeal stands allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/-

payable to the Respondents, within a week from today. Pending applications,

if any, are also closed.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

Ram N./Ravi R.