Restoration Plea Filed Beyond 30 Days Can't Be Entertained Without Condonation Of Delay: NCLAT Delhi

The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi, on 18 September held that an application seeking restoration of a company petition dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 must be filed within 30 days of the dismissal. If filed beyond this period, the applicant must first seek condonation of delay.

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma with Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey upheld the dismissal of restoration applications filed by two alleged employees/consultants of Chemie-Tech Projects Ltd. It observed:

“we are of the view that, even taking for granted when there is a Restoration Application, first of all, it ought to have been preferred within 30 days from the date of passing of the order i.e. 05.05.2025, and if it has not been so, for whatsoever reason the Appellant was restricted from filing the Restoration Application within time under law, at least, the reasonable process provided under law that the Appellant should have satisfactorily explained the delay by filing of Restoration Application.”

The appellants had filed applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the NCLT, Ahmedabad, claiming salary and other employment-related dues from Chemie-Tech Projects Ltd.

On 5 May 2025, the matters were listed for final hearing. However, counsel for the appellants did not remain present, citing a medical emergency. The NCLT consequently dismissed the petitions for non-prosecution.

Before the NCLAT, the appellants submitted that they had explained the reason for the non-appearance and informed the NCLT Registrar through an email dated 9 May 2025. Thereafter, they filed restoration applications before the NCLT in July 2025. The NCLT dismissed the applications, observing that they had been filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Rule 48(2) and were not accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Appellate Tribunal examined Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules and noted that it permits an applicant to seek restoration of a petition or application dismissed for default within 30 days by showing sufficient cause. It noted that the restoration applications were not accompanied by applications for condonation of delay, which was a pre-condition for seeking restoration beyond the prescribed 30-day period.

Further, the Bench observed that the medical emergency could explain the counsel's non-appearance but, by itself, could not explain the delay in filing the restoration applications.

It also noted that the alleged medical emergency was not supported by medical documents. It further held that the email sent to the NCLT Registrar could not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning the delay.

Accordingly, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT's orders dismissing the restoration applications and dismissed the appeals.

For Appellants: Advocate Arijeet Banerjee, 

For Respondent: Advocate Vishwendra Verma,