Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 147 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - NCLT rejected the application for non-appearance - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - service of valid demand notice - stand of the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to consider that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause namely Technical Issue / Connectivity Issue at the time of calling the matter in virtual hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - scope of the term sufficient cause - HELD THAT:- It comes to be known that on 18.02.2021, the Applicant/Appellant because of his failure to appear before the Adjudicating Authority, the case was dismissed for Non-Prosecution. On 07.04.2021, the Restoration Application was filed and that the case was posted for hearing on 21.04.2021, where a Counsel of the Applicant/Appellant appeared and failed to address any argument. But the Respondent made the argument that the Application filed was defective on various grounds and time was granted to the Respondent to file counter. It is significant for this Appellate Tribunal to point out that the Restoration Application is completely mentioned the reason as to why the adjournment was requested on 24.09.2021 and what for, the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority were not conducted by the Appellant/Applicant on earlier hearings. The Respondent projects a plea that the total claim of the Appellant/Applicant is less than Rs.1 Crore, threshold limit and the I & B Code, 2016, is utilised as a Money Recovery Fora, by the Applicant/Appellant which is impermissible in law - It is to be pointed out that the plea of Restoration/Condonation of Delay is not a matter of right. The term Sufficient Cause is a circumstance to be taken into account in exercising discretion by a Tribunal/Court of Law. No wonder, the Tribunal cannot determine the aspect of Sufficiency of Cause dehors the facts pleaded and made out by a Party. Where Bonafides are absent, there can be no Sufficient Cause for allowing the Restoration Application by the Tribunal. In Law, Sufficient Cause is not different from Good Cause. A Party who is not vigilant may not get a second opportunity. Mere absence of the Learned Counsel or a Pleader or that he is engaged elsewhere or he was engaged or in another Court is not a good reason for Restoration. Indeed, acceptability of an Explanation is the criteria for allowing a Restoration Application projected by a Party. If there is inaction, want of Bonafide, which is imputable to the Applicant/Appellant, then the Restoration Application is not to be allowed by a Tribunal or by a Court of Law. Of course, the Tribunal is to decide the Restoration Application on merits. It must be remembered that time is precious and a wasted time will never come back again or revisit in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. - In the instant case, on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, a Demand Notice dated 02.04.2019 was addressed to the Respondent demanding a sum of Rs.13,49,016/-, being the sum which was the defaulted one. Furthermore, the Debt was stated to be pending from the Financial Year 2011-2012 and it is continuing one, according to the Applicant/Appellant. This Tribunal, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case is not inclined to take a liberal approach in allowing the application on the file of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench) by extending its Judicial Arm of Generosity, when Bonafides are very much conspicuously absent. Appeal dismissed.
|