Document ff5df9e7-b15c-4234-a798-66f33020fdbc

Court: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Case type: Company Appeal(AT)(Ins)
Decided on: 24-02-2026

<div> NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 337 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1272 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Prashant Giridhar Menon …Appellant Versus ---- …Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Mr. Yahya Batatawala, Advocates. For Respondents : O R D E R (Hybrid Mode) 24.02.2026: I.A. No. 1272 of 2026: This is an application praying for condonation of 6 days’ delay in filing the appeal. We find that sufficient cause has been shown in the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. I.A. No.1272 of 2026 is disposed of. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been filed against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 11.12.2025 by which the Restoration Application No.84 of 2025 filed by the Appellant to restore the application which was dismissed for want of persecution has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that application was filed under Section 94 of the I&B Code by the Applicant and right from 2023, the application was never heard and only on one day 17.01.2025 applicant could not appear, however, the matter was adjourned. On 10.10.2025 when the application was taken by the Adjudicating Authority, counsel for the Applicant logged in but his voice could not be heard and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for non-prosecution on 10.10.2025 holding that no one appears for the Applicant. It is submitted that the Restoration Application was filed within 30 days where Applicant has clearly submitted in Para 8-9 to the following effect: “8. The captioned Company Petition was thereafter listed on 10.10.2025. The Applicant submits that when the matter was called out, the Advocate of the Applicant was logged-in through VC. However, due to technical glitch, the voice of the Advocate could not be heard during the virtual hearing. Consequently, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Order dated 10.10.2025 dismissed the captioned Company Petition for want of prosecution. Hereto annexed and marked "Annexure D" is the copy of Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal 9. The Applicant submits that the appearance of Applicant’s Advocates duly recorded in the Order dated 10.10.2025, which fortifies the fact that the Applicant was diligently prosecuting the case. 1t was only due to technical error that representation could not be made. The Applicant submits that the non- appearance of the Advocate was on account of technical glitch and was beyond the control of the Applicant or his Advocate. The Applicant fu1ther submits that the Applicant has made a bonafide Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 337 of 2026 2 of 4 attempt to make representation before this Hon'ble Tribunal.” 4. It is submitted that the Restoration Application was filed within 30 days and Applicant has been diligently prosecuting his application and there was sufficient reason given in the Restoration Application to give one opportunity to the Applicant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. 6. Although in the order dated 10.10.2025, it is recorded that no one appears for the Applicant but Applicant has come up with the case that the counsel was logged in which is also apparent from the presence of the counsel as recorded in order dated 10.10.2025. The Adjudicating Authority has not adverted to the reason and has only referred that there were no such complaints in respect of the system being in-operative on that day from any other stakeholder. The fact that no complaint was filed by other stakeholder regarding system was no reason to reject the Restoration Application when Applicant has come up with specific case that counsel was logged in but his voice could not be heard and further counsel’s appearance was on the record. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal. Set aside order dated 11.12.2025 and allow Restoration Application No.84 of 2025. Order dated 10.10.2025 is set aside. The application under Section 94 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority to be considered afresh in accordance with law. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 337 of 2026 3 of 4 8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application under Section 94. 9. Appellant is given liberty to file this order before the Adjudicating Authority and pray for fixation of date. [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 337 of 2026 4 of 4 </div>