Tapan Bhar vs Pashupati Nath Himghar Pvt.Ltd. & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 119 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A restoration application seeking to revive a company petition dismissed for non-prosecution may be dismissed where it is filed after unexplained delay and no sufficient reason is shown for restoration; a party's continued absence from listed hearings, followed by a long gap before seeking restoration, justifies refusal of restoration and the appeal against that refusal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Tapan Bhar ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Pashupati Nath Himghar Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Partha Sil, Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Mr. Srijit Datta, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Patita Paban Bishwal, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
15.07.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated
01.03.2023 whereby restoration application viz. R.A. No. 9/KB/2022 was
dismissed by the Ld. NCLT and the said order is as under:
1. Ld. Counsel for the parties present.
RST.A(COMPANIES ACT)/9(KB)2022
2. This IA has been filed by petitioner seeking restoration of Company Petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.05.2022. This Restoration Application has been filed on 23.11.2022.
3. There is no reason as to why so much of time has been taken to file this Restoration Application. We also see that there are no sufficient reasons to such seek restoration of main CP. It is to be noted that an order of dismissal was passed 19.05.2022 after recording continuous absence of petitioner on various dates. We do not find any merit of this Restoration Application and accordingly, this Restoration Application is dismissed."
2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant the first restoration
viz. R.A. No. 4/KB/2022 was filed for restoration of Company Petition No.
199/KB/2013 which Company Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on -2-
19.05.2022. The said Restoration Application No. 4/KB/2022 however was
also dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2022 on the ground the application was
filed by a person who was admittedly not a party to the proceedings and also
there was no authorisation in his favour to file such application.
3. Admittedly the original Company Petition No. 199/KB/2013 was
dismissed on 19.05.2022 noting the fact there has been no appearance on
behalf of the appellant herein on 3rd February 2020, 28th December 2021, 08th
March 2022 and as well as 19.05.2022, when the order was passed dismissing
the Company Petition No. 199/KB/2013.
4. Admittedly, there was even delay in filing the restoration viz. R.A. No.
9/KB/2022. Further, admittedly there is no challenge to the order of dismissal
dated 19.05.2020, till today. Considering the lacklustre approach of the
appellant herein, we find no sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned order
dated 01.03.2023, hence the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, are also closed.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
R.N./Manu
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