https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778192 Repeated non-appearance and repeated adjournments justified refusal to restore the first Section 94 petition dismissed for non-prosecution, as the explanation for absence was not accepted and the conduct showed lack of diligence. A later Section 94 petition on the same transaction was also properly dismissed because the earlier dismissal was not disclosed, the filing was viewed as an attempt to delay recovery and secure moratorium benefits, and the Tribunal treated the conduct as an abuse of process rather than a bona fide insolvency request. Both challenges failed, and the impugned orders, including the cost direction, were sustained. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778192 Repeated non-appearance and repeated adjournments justified refusal to restore the first Section 94 petition dismissed for non-prosecution, as the explanation for absence was not accepted and the conduct showed lack of diligence. A later Section 94 petition on the same transaction was also properly dismissed because the earlier dismissal was not disclosed, the filing was viewed as an attempt to delay recovery and secure moratorium benefits, and the Tribunal treated the conduct as an abuse of process rather than a bona fide insolvency request. Both challenges failed, and the impugned orders, including the cost direction, were sustained. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778192