Psa Nitrogen Limited vs Hindalco Industries Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.658 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appeal filed beyond the thirty-day period prescribed for appeals, without any application for condonation of delay supported by explanation of sufficient cause, cannot be entertained, and the Tribunal will not consider it on the merits. An application for restoration of a petition dismissed for default must, under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, be filed within thirty days of the dismissal and must show sufficient cause for the non-appearance; where it is filed out of time, without satisfying that requirement, it cannot be granted. Discretionary relief is not available to a party whose conduct in repeatedly filing belated and unprosecuted applications, and in failing to pay costs imposed on an earlier occasion, shows a lack of diligence; a plea that the parties were attempting an amicable settlement does not excuse non-compliance with the mandatory time limit in Rule 48(2).
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.658 of 2023 In the matter of: PSA Nitrogen Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: Appellant: Mr. Devesh Kumar Malan and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocates Respondent:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 21.08.2024 - This Appeal is filed against an impugned Order dated 24th
January, 2023 passed by the learned NCLT, Mumbai in CP (IB)-4082(MB)/2019.
The impugned Order is as under:-
"ORDER Ms. Anubha Rastogi, counsel appearing for the Respondent is present through virtual hearing.
R.A. 2/2023 None appeared for the petitioner nor the hard copy of the Restoration Application bearing No. 2/2023 is available before this Bench. The above Company Petition was already dismissed for default on 30.11.2021 against which a Restoration Application bearing No. 11/2022 was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.08.2022. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he is filing successive applications very casually without seriousness. Hence, the above Restoration Application is dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund."
2 2. A bare perusal of the impugned Order would show the Restoration
Application No.2 of 2023 was dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.1 lakh payable
by the petitioner to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Admittedly, the said cost
has not been paid so far.
3. Now we come to the issue of limitation as raised by the learned Counsel
for the Respondent.
4. This impugned Order was passed on 24th January, 2023. The Appeal
admittedly was not filed within 30 days but is filed within the extended period of
15 days. There is no application for condonation of delay filed along with this
Appeal, hence no sufficient cause is explained to condone the delay in filing such
Appeal beyond 30 days.
5. Secondly, we have also perused the facts of the case. A company petition
CP (IB)-4082(MB)/2019 was filed on 25th September, 2019 and was listed on 17th
August, 2021 for the first time before the learned Adjudicating Authority. None
appeared for the Appellant on that date. It was again listed thrice and lastly on
30th November, 2021, when again none appeared for the Appellant. Accordingly
the company petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Admittedly, the
Restoration Application was filed on 24th August, 2022. As per Rule 48 of the
NCLT Rules 2016, such application for restoration ought to have been filed
within 30 days. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 read as under:-
"(2) Where the petition or application has been dismissed for default and the applicant files an application within thirty days from the date of dismissal and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.658 of 2023 3
petition or the application was called for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order restoring the same:
Provided that where the case was disposed of on merits the decision shall not be re-opened."
6. We have also perused the record of this Appeal. Admittedly, the first
restoration application was filed on 24th August, 2022 and was dismissed on the
same day itself. Yet again, the second restoration application was filed on
24.1.2023 and that too with much delay. It was dismissed for non-prosecution
with cost of Rs.1 lakh as stated above. The amount of cost was never deposited.
Looking at lack luster attitude of the Appellant, no discretionary relief can be
granted to appellant.
7. The arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant that they have been
trying to settle the matter amicably, hence there was delay, would not give
appellant a right to file application contravening Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules,
2016.
8. In view of the above, there is no force in Appeal and hence it is dismissed.
Pending Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) rs/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.658 of 2023
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