Renu Kapoor vs Shailesh Verma Resolution ...
- CitationRestoration Application No.3 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may restore a dismissed appeal in the exercise of its discretion where the appellant's reasons for non-appearance (here, residence outside Delhi and an inability to instruct new counsel at short notice) are accepted as sufficient, and a purposeful, practical approach is preferred over a hyper-technical one to secure the ends of justice. Objection that the appellant had not come with clean hands, and that the appeal had become infructuous upon approval of the resolution plan, did not by itself bar restoration; the Tribunal's subjective satisfaction as to the reasons offered was the basis for allowing the restoration application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Restoration Application No.3 of 2024 in COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(Ins) NO.1429 OF 2022 Renu Kapoor Appellant Vs Shailesh Verma & Ors Respondent For Appellant:Mr Utsav Trivedi, Ms Shivani Bhushan, Ms Diksha Tyagi, Advocates. For Respondent:Ms Charu Bansal, Advocate. ORDER
HYBRID MODE 14.02.2024: The Appellant/Petitioner has projected the instant Restoration
Application No.3/2024 in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1429/2022 based on
the reason that the petitioner/appellant is a resident of Mumbai, and has
less/no connection with respect to the Learned counsel in Delhi and it is
because of this, the Petitioner/Appellant was not in a position to pass on
'necessary instructions' to a new Learned Counsel or appoint/hire a new
Learned Counsel to appear/represent, on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant
in the instant Company Appeal at such a short notice/duration
It is the plea of the Petitioner/Appellant that he was not aware that the
instant 'Appeal' got dismissed "due to non-prosecution'' and added further
that the Petitioner/Appellant has also given reasons in the instant Application
that the dismissal of the instant 'Appeal' resultantly affects approximately 368
Non-Possession Home buyers who are 'aggrieved' by the impugned order 2
passed by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal in IA No. 769/2022 in CP(IB)
No.1765/9(MB)2018.
For the Restoration Application, IA No.3/2024 in Company Appeal
(AT)(Ins) No.1429/2022, for R1, Ms Charu Bansal, the Learned counsel
appears and opposes the Restoration Application No.3/2024 in the instant
'Appeal' by pointing out that the Resolution Plan got approved on 21.07.2023
and as such, the instant Appeal has become an infructuous one. Therefore,
the Petitioner/Appellant has not come out with clean hands in filing the
Restoration Application No.3/2024 before this Tribunal and on this score
alone the instant Appeal is to be dismissed in limine.
Although an objection is raised on behalf of the Respondent stating that
the Resolution Plan was approved and on that date the instant Appeal has
become an infructuous one, this Tribunal on being subjectively satisfied as to
the reasons ascribed on behalf of the petitioner/Appellant, being a resident of
Mumbai and has no contact with the Learned counsel in Delhi and because
of the reasons it was not in a position to obtain instructions to engage a new
Learned counsel or appoint a new lawyer of the Appellant/Applicant in the
instant Appeal, this Tribunal is of the earnest view that it will be quite in the
fitness of things that the instant Restoration Application is to be allowed,
On a careful consideration of respective submissions, advanced on
either side, this 'Tribunal' by taking a purposeful, practical and rational
approach and not resorting to any kind of hyper-technical approach allows
the Restoration Application No.3/2024 to secure ends of justice. No costs. 3
Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1429/2022
Consequent to the Restoration Application No.3/2024 being allowed
vide this Tribunal today the main Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1429/2022
stands restored to the file of this Tribunal.
After restoration of the Comp App (AT)(Ins) No.1429/2022 to the file of
this Appellate Tribunal, the Learned representing counsel for the Appellant,
at this stage seeks permission simpliciter from this Tribunal to withdraw the
instant 'Appeal' based on the reasons that it has become an 'infructuous' one.
Acceding to his said request the instant Company Appeal (AT)(Ins)
No.1429/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
(Justice M. Venugopal) Member (Judicial)
(Mr. Arun Baroka) Member (Technical) Bm/md
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