Prashant Giridhar Menon vs Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF: Prashant Giridhar Menon ...Appellant

Versus

---- ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Mr. Yahya Batatawala, Advocates. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.02.2026: I.A. No. 1272 of 2026: This is an application praying for

condonation of 6 days' delay in filing the appeal. We find that sufficient cause

has been shown in the application for condonation of delay. Delay is

condoned. I.A. No.1272 of 2026 is disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed

against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 11.12.2025 by

which the Restoration Application No.84 of 2025 filed by the Appellant to

restore the application which was dismissed for want of persecution has been

rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that application was filed

under Section 94 of the I&B Code by the Applicant and right from 2023, the

application was never heard and only on one day 17.01.2025 applicant could

not appear, however, the matter was adjourned. On 10.10.2025 when the application was taken by the Adjudicating Authority, counsel for the Applicant

logged in but his voice could not be heard and the Adjudicating Authority

rejected the application for non-prosecution on 10.10.2025 holding that no

one appears for the Applicant. It is submitted that the Restoration Application

was filed within 30 days where Applicant has clearly submitted in Para 8-9 to

the following effect:

"8. The captioned Company Petition was thereafter listed on 10.10.2025. The Applicant submits that when the matter was called out, the Advocate of the Applicant was logged-in through VC. However, due to technical glitch, the voice of the Advocate could not be heard during the virtual hearing. Consequently, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Order dated 10.10.2025 dismissed the captioned Company Petition for want of prosecution.

Hereto annexed and marked "Annexure D" is the copy of Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal

9. The Applicant submits that the appearance of Applicant's Advocates duly recorded in the Order dated 10.10.2025, which fortifies the fact that the Applicant was diligently prosecuting the case. 1t was only due to technical error that representation could not be made. The Applicant submits that the non- appearance of the Advocate was on account of technical glitch and was beyond the control of the Applicant or his Advocate. The Applicant fu1ther submits that the Applicant has made a bonafide

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 337 of 2026 2 of 4 attempt to make representation before this Hon'ble Tribunal."

4. It is submitted that the Restoration Application was filed within 30 days

and Applicant has been diligently prosecuting his application and there was

sufficient reason given in the Restoration Application to give one opportunity

to the Applicant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the

record.

6. Although in the order dated 10.10.2025, it is recorded that no one

appears for the Applicant but Applicant has come up with the case that the

counsel was logged in which is also apparent from the presence of the counsel

as recorded in order dated 10.10.2025. The Adjudicating Authority has not

adverted to the reason and has only referred that there were no such

complaints in respect of the system being in-operative on that day from any

other stakeholder. The fact that no complaint was filed by other stakeholder

regarding system was no reason to reject the Restoration Application when

Applicant has come up with specific case that counsel was logged in but his

voice could not be heard and further counsel's appearance was on the record.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal. Set aside order dated

11.12.2025 and allow Restoration Application No.84 of 2025. Order dated

10.10.2025 is set aside. The application under Section 94 is revived before

the Adjudicating Authority to be considered afresh in accordance with law.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 337 of 2026 3 of 4

8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the application under Section 94.

9. Appellant is given liberty to file this order before the Adjudicating

Authority and pray for fixation of date.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 337 of 2026 4 of 4