Service of notice and unexplained delay justified refusal to recall an ex parte order in insolvency proceedings.

Recall of an ex parte order requires credible proof of non-service, fraud, misrepresentation, or sufficient cause for non-appearance. Notices and hearing communications sent to the appellants' admitted email address and by speed post were treated as served because the emails did not bounce and no material rebutted receipt. The record indicated wilful non-participation, while the recall request was made after about 400 days without a cogent explanation. In time-bound insolvency proceedings, the unexplained delay and absence of sufficient cause supported refusal to recall the ex parte order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte order could be recalled on the ground of non-service of notice and delayed knowledge of the proceedings.

Analysis: Repeated notices and hearing communications had been sent to the appellants' admitted email address and by speed post. The emails had not bounced, and no material rebutted the presumption of receipt. The record also established service of notices and wilful non-participation in the proceedings. The recall application was filed after about 400 days without cogent explanation; no fraud, misrepresentation, or sufficient cause for non-appearance was established. In time-bound insolvency proceedings, such unexplained delay could not be ignored.

Conclusion: Recall of the ex parte order was rightly refused; the finding is against the appellants.

---