Litigant Cannot Seek Restoration Of Dismissed Plea After Repeated Absence: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently ruled that applicants cannot delay proceedings by repeatedly remaining absent, observing that they cannot dictate the pace of a case after being given sufficient opportunities to appear.

A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati dismissed Anil Tukaram Sawarkar's application seeking restoration of a plea earlier dismissed for non prosecution on August 24, 2026, holding that he had failed to establish sufficient cause warranting restoration.

"Though an applicant is the master of its own case, it cannot be permitted to become the master of the proceedings or to delay their progress by remaining absent or otherwise. Before passing the order of dismissal, this Tribunal duly observed the principles of natural justice in their true letter and spirit and afforded sufficient opportunity to the Applicant.", the Tribunal said. 

The case arose when NCLT Mumbai Bench dismissed Anil Tukaram Sawarkar's restoration application, holding that no sufficient cause had been established to restore his plea which was dismissed for non-prosecution on August 24, 2026. The original application had been pending before the Tribunal since November 19, 2024.

The Bench noted that the applicant had failed to appear despite a specific warning on August 18, 2026, that the plea would be dismissed if he failed to appear or make submissions. The applicant cited a change of counsel and lack of effective communication as reasons for his absence.

Relying on Rafiq v. Munshilal and the NCLAT's ruling in MLok Sewak Leasing & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. GBL Chemical Ltd., the applicant sought restoration.

The Tribunal noted that the matter had been pending since November 19, 2024 and that several earlier adjournments had been granted due to counsel's absence or other reasons.

Holding that the applicant had failed to establish any legal infirmity, procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice warranting interference with the order, the Tribunal said that mere dissatisfaction could not be a valid ground for its recall.

"The Applicant has failed to point out any legal infirmity, procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference with the order. Mere dissatisfaction with the order cannot constitute a valid ground for its recall."

It accordingly dismissed the restoration application.

For the Applicant: Advocate Bhupendra Dave

For the Respondents: Advocate Raina Birla