TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the restoration application could be rejected on merits of the underlying insolvency petition.
Analysis: The restoration application was supported by an affidavit stating that counsel could not appear on the first effective date because of a family bereavement, and an email seeking adjournment had been sent before the hearing. The question at that stage was confined to whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the matter was called. The prior conduct of the applicant, including allegations of misuse of process, clean hands, or forum shopping, was premature to examine while deciding restoration, because the underlying petition under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not then up for merits consideration. The Tribunal should have tested only the explanation for non-appearance, and the stated cause was not shown to be unbelievable or insufficient.
Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established, and the order rejecting restoration could not be sustained. The restoration application was liable to be allowed, with the underlying petition restored for consideration on its own merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
