Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rcm Finance And Leasing Private Limited ... vs Ansa Polymers Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 November 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a restoration application is filed to recall an order dismissing an insolvency petition for non-prosecution, and the application pleads a specific, verifiable reason for the non-appearance of counsel (attendance before another bench of the Tribunal on the same day in a matter heard for over thirty minutes, with a concurrent virtual hearing before another bench), such reasons constitute sufficient cause for recall, and the Adjudicating Authority errs in rejecting the restoration application on the ground that no valid reasons were stated.

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) (Ins) No. 1283 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: RCM Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Ansa Polymers Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Srishti Juneja and Mr. Pankaj Walia, Advocates. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

18.11.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. Notices were issued in the appeal by order dated 04.09.2025 although

notices have been delivered as per report of the Registry but no one has

appeared on behalf of the respondent when the case is called today.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by an Adjudicating

Authority dated 22.05.2025 by which restoration application 41/ND/2025

has been rejected. The Section 7 application filed by the appellant was listed

on 13.03.2025 when nobody appears hence the court fixed the matter for

21.04.2025 and on 21.04.2025 again no one appeared and the Adjudicating

Authority dismissed application for non-prosecution. Order dated 21.04.2025

is as follows:-

"ORDER

As per the order dated 13.03.2025, no one had appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Today, also no one appears on behalf of the Applicant. This conduct of the Applicant shows that applicant is no more interested in pursuing this matter.

Therefore, IB/ 158/ND/2025 is dismissed for non- prosecution."

4. Applicant filed an application for restoration being 41/ND/2025 which

came to be dismissed on 22.05.2025 against which order this appeal has

been filed. Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that on

21.04.2025 when the application was listed; the appellant was present in the

NCLT before Bench-II in CP (IB) No. 874/ND/2024 and in the application

appellant in paragraph- 4, 5 & 6 following had been pleaded:-

"4. That whereas on 21st April 2025, Three matter was listed before the NCLT and the aforesaid matter was listed before this Hon'ble Tribunal as Item No. 407, however due to the unfortunate predicament of the counsel for the Applicant, the counsel was required to attend two other matters on the same day.

5. It is most humbly submitted whereas the counsel who was physically present in the Court before Bench II of this Hon'ble Tribunal in C.P. (I.B.) No. 874 of 2024 for final arguments.

6. It is respectfully submitted that as is abundantly clear from a bare perusal of the aforesaid order which was passed in open court, the hearing in the said matter which was listed as item 204 lasted for more than 30 minutes. That simultaneously, the counsel's colleagues were also attending to a hearing before the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in C.P. No. 379 of 2024 virtually."

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1283 of 2025

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that notice was not issued on

recall application and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application by

impugned order. When we look into the impugned order it is clear that the

Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the restoration application observing

that no any valid reasons are mentioned in the restoration application to

restore the Company Petition. Restoration application which was filed by the

appellant contains the reasons as noted above and application for restoration

was filed on 01.05.2025 to recall the order dated 21.04.2025. We thus are of

the view that sufficient reasons were shown by the appellant in the

restoration application for recall of the order. As noted above, no one has

appeared despite notice to the respondents.

6. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order

dated 22.05.2025 and allow the restoration application 41/ND/2025 and

restore the C.P (IB) No. 158/ND/2025 to its original number. Let the

appellant make an application for fixing the date in the Company Petition by

producing the copy of this order before the Adjudicating Authority and

Adjudicating Authority may fix a date for consideration and proceed in

accordance with law.

With these observations, we dispose of the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD 3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1283 of 2025

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