Rcm Finance And Leasing Private Limited ... vs Ansa Polymers Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1283 of 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
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