Litigants Are Not Trained Advocates, Restoration Application Can’t Be Dismissed Due To Counsel’s Failure To Inform Of Proceedings: NCLAT

Within the current case, the petition below part 7 of the Insolvency and Chapter Code, 2016 was dismissed on the bottom that the monetary creditor didn’t seem when the matter was referred to as out. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that non look of the Litigant resulting from failure on the a part of its counsel to tell them of the proceedings can not go towards such litigant.

Transient Info:

The current attraction has been filed by M/s Lok Sewak Leasing & Funding Pvt. Ltd (Appellant) difficult the Impugned Order dated 22.01.2025 handed by the Nationwide Firm Legislation Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.

In January 2024, the Respondent, M/s GBL Chemical Ltd., approached the Appellant for a short-term enterprise mortgage of Rs. 7,03,00,000/- at an rate of interest of 10.21% per annum, to be repaid in six instalments of Rs. 1,19,16,667/- every, commencing from 08.02.2024 over a 120-day interval.

Thereafter, the phrases of the mortgage have been integrated in a Facility Settlement executed on 24.01.2024. A requirement promissory be aware and letter of continuity executed on 19.01.2024. in favor of the Appellant.

An Intimation Letter dated 01.04.2024 and a Demand-cum-Acceleration Discover dated 06.04.2024 have been served on the Respondent by which excellent quantity of Rs. 4,77,28,287/- (computed as on 05.04.2024) was claimed inside seven days.

Regardless of receiving the discover, the Respondent didn’t clear the dues by 13.04.2024, thereby committing a default below the Facility Settlement.

An software was filed below part 7 of the Code which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority for non-prosecution because of the non look of the Appellant’s counsel.

The Appellant submitted that this dismissal resulted solely from the failure of its then-counsel to seem or inform the Adjudicating Authority of the e-filed affidavit, a circumstance solely past the Appellant’s management.

It was additional submitted that the Appellant complied with the instructions of the Adjudicating Authority and served a duplicate of the Restoration Software on the Respondent. Moreover, each events have been heard when the matter was taken up for consideration. The Impugned has didn’t correctly handle the submissions superior thereby violating the precept of pure justice.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the Adjudicating Authority rightly dismissed the Restoration Software because of the Appellant’s non-compliance with the order dated 04.09.2024, and non-appearance on 30.09.2024, as recorded within the Impugned Order.

It was additional submitted that the Restoration Software was filed past the obligatory 30-day interval prescribed below Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Guidelines, 2016. The Respondent contended that the dismissal order was handed on 30.09.2024, and the advance copy of the Restoration Software was served on the Respondent solely on 25.11.2024, effectively past the permissible interval. the Appellant neither sought an extension of time to file the remaining paperwork nor supplied any clarification for its failure to conform totally.

Lastly, it was submitted that the dismissal of the Part 7 Software on 30.09.2024, was not solely for non-prosecution but additionally for non-compliance with the order dated 04.09.2024. The Respondent submitted that this twin foundation for dismissal precludes restoration below Rule 48(2), which applies solely to dismissals for non-appearance.

Observations:

The Tribunal famous that the matter was referred to as twice however neither the Appellant nor its consultant appeared earlier than the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, the Appellant was given two weeks time to file the settlement between the events together with the monetary assertion and NeSL certificates by the use of an extra affidavit. Nevertheless, the stated affidavit was not filed by the Appellant main to the conclusion that the Appellant was severe for the prosecution of the case subsequently the Software was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority.

It additional noticed that as per Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Guidelines, the Restoration Software must be filed by the Litigant inside 30 days. Within the current case, the software was filed throughout the stipulated interval. It rejected the argument of the Respondent that because the copy of the Software was not obtained by him on time, the appliance can’t be stated to have been filed on time.

The Tribunal additional famous that the Adjudicating Authority didn’t point out something concerning the non-appearance of the Appellant and its counsel on the date of authentic listening to whereas dismissing the Restoration Software. The one motive that has been given by the Adjudicating Authority for dismissing the Software is that the Appellant didn’t remedy the defects within the authentic petition and didn’t file the extra paperwork regardless of acquiring permission of the Authority for a similar.

The Tribunal additional noticed that within the current case it was the Appellant itself which sought to file the extra affidavit enclosing paperwork together with mortgage settlement and many others. after getting permission of the Adjudicating Authority. We be aware that the extra affidavit was certainly filed, nevertheless, remained in defects, which in accordance with the Appellant was resulting from non lively participation of the then counsel of the Appellant, who didn’t take vital motion for curing defects or dropped at the discover of the Appellant.

Based mostly on the above, it held that the Tribunal can enable the restoration software, if ample trigger is made out by the litigants. Within the current case, the reasoning given by the Appellant was non-appearance of the counsel and thereafter non-curing the defects, may have been handled as ample trigger.

The Tribunal held that “the Rule 48 (2) of makes use of the phrase “shall” which signify that if ample trigger is made out, then it’s anticipated that the Tribunal shall enable restoration software. The aim of dismissal for non-prosecution is for procurement of the involved get together and his counsel and to not dismiss the attraction with out going into the benefit. This can be a common spirit and courts observe the identical together with this Appellate Tribunal. At this stage, we additionally think about that the liberal view is to be taken in such points supplied the litigant will not be causal and non-vigilant.”

The Supreme Courtroom in Rafiq & Anr. vs. Munshilal & Anr. held {that a} litigant who has entrusted his case to his lawyer can’t be penalized for the lapse or negligence of his lawyer” It was lastly held within the identical case that “except a litigant is a lawyer by skilled or is in any other case a man of legislation, he can’t be anticipated to know what is occurring within the courtroom except the lawyer showing for him informs him.

In gentle of the above dialogue, it concluded that it was the Appellant itself, which sought to file the Further Affidavits which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority and never on the preliminary instructions of the Adjudicating Authority. Wanting from totally different angles even when the extra affidavit was not filed, the matter may have been heard by itself benefit. Subsequently, the dismissal of the restoration software on the bottom that the extra affidavit was mendacity in defects with registry, can’t be allowed to be sustained.

Accordingly, the current attraction was allowed.

Case Title: M/S Lok Sewak Leasing & Funding Non-public Restricted Versus M/s GBL Chemical Restricted

Case Quantity: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 483 of 2025

Judgment Date: 03/07/2025

For Appellants: Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Mr. Vivek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Paniker, Mr. Krishna Upreti, Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Aditya Dewan, Mr. Parag Khandhar, Mr. Varun Kalra, Mr. Tapan Raokar, Advocates for R-1.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order