Sundeep Shah vs Anil Kohli & Ors & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Sundeep Shah ...Appellants Versus Anil Kohli ...Respondents Resolution Professional of Eastern Silk Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A. Khan and Mr. Dev Aaryan, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vishal Ganda, Advocate for R8.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.08.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties on the Restoration

Application No. 16 - 20 of 2026, where the appellant seeks recall of the order

dated 31.01.2026 that was rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 418 -

422 of 2024, dismissing the company appeal for want of prosecution.

2. Initially when the application was preferred, the same was suffering from

certain defects, owing to, which the appellant has filed IA Nos. 2458-2462 of

2026, explaining the reasons for delay in refiling.

3. The said application is being vehemently opposed by the respondent's

counsel on the ground that, the averments that has been made in the

application for seeking condonation of 43 days of delay, particularly that as

contained in para-2(d) of the application is absolutely a non-sustainable

ground, because even if its presume that there was marriage in the clerk's family, then too the counsels clerk was not expected to carry all the

documents, based on which the restoration application could have been

preferred. Hence, it is submitted by the respondents that the grounds taken

in the delay condonation in refiling is absolutely concocted and does not

deserves to be condoned.

4. However, the averments, which has been made in the para-2(d) of the

application pertaining the contingency, being faced by the clerk who was

attached to the chambers of counsel for the appellant. We cannot rule out the

possibility that in the chamber of the counsels at times, the documents were

kept in the custody of the clerk. There could be a possibility in this case too

and more particularly, owing to the fact that the entire reason for delay is

attributed to the chambers of the counsel. We are of the view that there is

merit in contention of appellant regarding the explanation of delay in refiling,

hence 43 days delay in refiling of the restoration application deserves to be

condoned, accordingly IA No. 2458-2462 of 2026 would stand allowed and 43

days delay in refiling of the restoration application is condoned.

5. Heard counsel for the parties on the Restoration Application No. 16-20 of

2026 itself. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and after perusing

the order dated 31.01.2026 the dismissal of the appeal has been due to the

absence of the counsel. The ground that has been taken by the appellant in

the application, that the application for restoration was preferred and that the

absence was on account of some pre-engagement of the counsel before the

Apex Court due to which he could not make himself convenient to appear 2 of 3 Restoration Application No. 16 - 20 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 418 - 422 of 2024 before this Tribunal. We are of the view this is sufficient cause for seeking

restoration of the recall and of the order dated 13.01.2026, and the reason

para-3 of the restoration application to be satisfactory. Accordingly, we recall

the order dated 13.01.2026 consequently, the Restoration Application No. 16-

20 of 2026 would stand allowed. The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 418 - 422

of 2024 would stand to restored to its original number.

List this appeal on 11.09.2026.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) harleen/Ravi

3 of 3 Restoration Application No. 16 - 20 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 418 - 422 of 2024