Restoration after dismissal for default depends on sufficient cause for non-appearance; casual or negligent conduct defeats relief.

Restoration of a petition dismissed for default requires timely application and proof of sufficient cause for non-appearance under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The Tribunal found repeated absence on consecutive hearing dates, discrepancies between recorded appearances and the order sheet, and no convincing explanation for the defaults. It held that the applicant had shown casualness and lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter, so restoration was not justified. The refusal to restore the petition was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the restoration application was rightly rejected for want of sufficient cause for non-appearance, and whether the dismissal of the underlying petition for default warranted restoration under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Analysis: Rule 48(2) mandates restoration only when the applicant applies within the prescribed time and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date when the petition was called for hearing. The Tribunal found that the applicant's recorded appearances did not match the order sheet, that there was repeated absence on consecutive dates, and that no convincing explanation was furnished for the defaults. It further held that the conduct reflected casualness and lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter, and that the restoration plea was an attempt to take undue advantage of the interim protection available under the insolvency regime.

Conclusion: The restoration application was not maintainable on the facts as no sufficient cause was shown, and the refusal to restore the petition was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration after dismissal for default is permissible only upon proof of sufficient cause for non-appearance, and a casual or negligent litigant cannot claim restoration as a matter of right.

---