Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Prudent Arc Limited vs Prasar Metal Engineering Private ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal4 September 2025Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal held that where a Section 7 application was dismissed for non-prosecution after the applicant's counsel was unable to join proceedings on time, and the applicant's restoration application pleads a bona fide, non-deliberate absence, sufficient cause for restoration is shown, and the proceedings may be restored on payment of costs to the opposite party.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1193 of 2025&I.A. No. 4661 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Prudent ARC Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Prasar Metal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Udit Chauhan, Mr. Sumeet Raj and Mr. Prerit Goyal, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.09.2025 : I.A. No. 4661/2025

1. This is an application praying for condonation of 7 days delay in filing

of the appeal.

2. Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of 7 days delay in

filing of the appeal.

Delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1193/2025

1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 03.04.2025, by which

Rest. App. 73(ND)/2024 filed by the appellant has been rejected.

2. Appellant has filed Section 7 application before the NCLT. Several dates

were fixed on the application, on few dates due to paucity of time the matter

was not taken and in some date appellant did not appear. On 13.05.2025

which was date fixed, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and

application was dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. A restoration was filed praying for restoration in which in paragraphs 3

to 7 following was pleaded:

"3. That the counsel for the Applicant was trying to join the proceedings through Virtually on 13.05.2023 but was put in the waiting room and therefore coutd not join on time when the matter was called.

3. That owning non-appearance of the Applicant was dismissed on 13.05.2024 for non-prosecution.

4. That the appellant states the non-appearance of counsel on the dates referred was neither deliberate nor intentional.

6. That the Applicant was also was desirous of attending the matter however the matter remained unattended for reasons as explained.

7. That the Applicant undertakes to appear physically on each date respectively such that the matter is prosecuted to its logical conclusion. It is further stated that the mistake committed by the Applicant be pardoned and this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to restore the matter such that the same can be argued on merits."

4. Adjudicating authority by impugned order rejected the application

observing that restoration application has been filed by the newly engaged

counsel challenging that previous counsel has not attended the matter.

Adjudicating authority did not find any valid reason for restoration.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1193 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4661 of 2025 2 of 4

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that only reason given

in paragraph 3 of the application was that applicant was trying to join the

proceeding through virtually but was put in the waiting room and could not

join on time.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above cannot be

any explanation for recall of the order.

7. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

8. The appellant has brought the order sheet of the court on the record

which is at page 140 to 144. Notice was issued on 26.05.2023 and order

sheet of 11.01.2024, 08.02.2024, 08.03.2024 & 22.03.2024 indicate that due

to paucity of time matter was adjourned. As far as the application was filed

by the new counsel, the said error was rectified by subsequent order dated

02.05.2025 by the adjudicating authority.

9. Appellant submits that the application was filed by earlier counsel

although subsequently new counsel was engaged to pursue the restoration

application.

10. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that sufficient cause

was shown in the application for restoration of the proceedings. We are of the

view that application need to be restored subject to payment of cost to the

respondent of Rs.25,000/-, which may be paid within two weeks from today.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1193 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4661 of 2025 3 of 4

11. The impugned order is set aside. Section 7 application is revived to be

considered afresh in accordance with law.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1193 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4661 of 2025 4 of 4

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