Counsel’s appearance before Supreme Court constitutes sufficient cause for restoring a petition dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Appellant filed an application under Section 10 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi

On 16.05.2025, the NCLT dismissed the petition for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the Appellant’s counsel

The Appellant subsequently moved a Restoration Application (No. 47 of 2025), explaining that the lead counsel was appearing before the Supreme Court of India in a GST-related matter on the date of the dismissal

The NCLT dismissed this restoration application on 09.06.2025

The Appellant challenged this dismissal before the NCLAT, asserting that the absence was bona fide and supported by a Supreme Court order noting the counsel's presence there

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) was justified in dismissing the Restoration Application despite the counsel providing a documented reason for non-appearance

2. Whether a party should be penalized for the non-appearance of their counsel due to professional engagements in a higher forum

The court considered Section 10 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016, regarding corporate insolvency resolution processes initiated by a corporate applicant

It applied the principle of "sufficient cause" for restoration of a dismissed petition, emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for the acts or bona fide omissions of their counsel

The court also adhered to the principles of natural justice, ensuring a party is provided a fair opportunity to contest the 'lis' (litigation) on merits rather than being shut out on technical procedural grounds

The NCLAT observed that the counsel’s absence on 16.05.2025 was due to his appearance in the Supreme Court as Item No. 23 in Court No. 3, which was substantiated by the Supreme Court’s order of that date

The Tribunal noted that while the counsel ought to have moved an adjournment application before the NCLT, his absence was limited to only two occasions—once due to ill health and once due to the Supreme Court engagement

The NCLAT found the explanation for non-appearance to be "sufficient and genuine"

Additionally, the Tribunal took note of the fact that Respondent No. 4 expressed no objection to the restoration of the application

Consequently, the NCLAT reasoned that the Appellant deserved an opportunity to contest the case diligently on its merits

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and allowed the appeal

The Restoration Application (47/ND/2025) was revived on the board of the NCLT with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing all parties

The parties were directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 22.04.2026, with no order as to costs