Rajendra Singh Rathore vs Chetanya Buildcon Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 186 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with an order refusing restoration of a Section 7 application where the Adjudicating Authority had prima facie found the claimed default to fall within the Section 10A suspension period, after giving the applicant an opportunity to explain by affidavit; the appeal was dismissed. Where a claimed default is prima facie covered by the Section 10A exclusion period, and the applicant has been given an opportunity to file an affidavit on that issue, the Appellate Tribunal sees no reason to interfere with the rejection of a restoration application arising from dismissal of the Section 7 application. An applicant whose Section 7 application was dismissed on the ground of a prima facie Section 10A default may be permitted to file a fresh application relying only on defaults falling outside the excluded period, and the dismissal of the appeal is without prejudice to that liberty.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajendra Singh Rathore & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Chetanya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Mr. Rohan Nandy and Ms. Yuganshi Singh, Advocates.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.02.2025 : This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated
18.10.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, Court - III), by which Order, the Application Restoration A-
107/2024 has been rejected.
2. The Appellant filed Section 7 Application claiming default by the
Corporate Debtor. Adjudicating Authority issued an Order asking the
Appellant to explain with regard to default being covered by 10A period.
Appellant claims to have filed an Affidavit. However, the Adjudicating
Authority dismissed the Section 7 Application by Order dated 04.09.2024.
Appellant filed an Application for Restoration A-107/2024 which has been
rejected by the Impugned Order.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even though the default
as referred to of March, April and May, 2020 was noticed, which was covered by 10A period, default is continuing and even after excluding the said period
i.e., default of March, April and May, 2020, Section 7 could have been
proceeded with.
4. After having considered the submissions of Counsel for the Parties, we
are of the view that when the Adjudicating Authority was prima facie satisfies
that default is covered by 10A period and opportunity is given to file an
Affidavit and thereafter the Application for Restoration has also been
dismissed, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal, however, in view of the
submission of the Appellant that excluding the aforesaid period of default,
Section 7 Application could have been proceeded. It is open for the Appellant
to file a fresh Application excluding the period of default which was covered
by the earlier Application under Section 7.
With the aforesaid liberty, Appeal dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 186 of 2025 & I.A. No. 623 of 2025 2 of 2
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