Shyamyji Construction Co. (Through ... vs Dilip Buildcon Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 482 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The court recognised a sufficient cause standard for condoning a 43-day delay in refiling an appeal, finding medical issues of the appellant to be sufficient cause for the delay. The court recalled its earlier dismissal for non-prosecution and restored the appeal to its original number, holding that the appellant's showing of sufficient cause justified recall of the order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Restoration Application (AT) No. 9 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 482 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Shyamji Construction Co. ...Appellants (Through Authorised Representative) Anil Bhatia Versus Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked. For Respondents : Mr. Harish Malik and Ms. Alankrita Singh, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.03.2026: I.A. No. 1580/2026
This is an application praying for condonation of 43 days refiling delay.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there were medical issues with
regard to the appellant due to which the delay was caused in refiling the
appeal. We find sufficient cause shown in the application. Refiling delay
condoned.
Restoration Application (AT) No. 9/2026
This is an application praying for restoration of the appeal which was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.12.2025.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as well as Ld. Counsel for
the respondent. We find sufficient cause shown in the application for recall of
the order dated 16.12.2025, restoration application is allowed appeal is
restored in its original number.
As prayed by the appellant, list on 13.04.2026.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD
2 of 2 Restoration Application (AT) No. 9 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 482 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