Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
