https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104292 Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 2026 08:34:54 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2026 08:34:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104292 Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim. Highlights IBC Tue, 29 Sep 2026 08:34:54 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104292