Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause under Rule 49 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 for recall of the ex parte order dated 07.06.2023.
Analysis: Rule 49 permits setting aside an ex parte hearing if notice was not duly served or if the party was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the matter was called. The appellant was aware of the proceedings, had entered appearance on 12.05.2023, knew that reply was required, and did not file the reply within time. The only explanation for absence on 07.06.2023 was that counsel noted the wrong date. On the record, the Adjudicating Authority found that this did not constitute sufficient cause, and that finding was based on the material before it.
Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for recall of the ex parte order, and the refusal to reopen the matter was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the rejection of the recall application was unsuccessful, and the ex parte order removing the appellant as Resolution Professional remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere noting of an incorrect hearing date, without more, does not by itself constitute sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte order under Rule 49 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.