NCLAT Restores Plea Dismissed For Non-Appearance, Accepts Counsel's SC Engagement As Explanation

Holding that counsel's appearance before the Supreme Court sufficiently explained his absence, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) restored an insolvency plea that had been dismissed for non-appearance before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The bench, comprising Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, said:

“In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient explanation has been given by the Appellant on non presence of their Advocate before the Adjudicating Authority on 09.06.2025 an opportunity may be provided to the Appellant to contest his case before the Learned Adjudicating Authority diligently.”

Brown Bird Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had moved the NCLT under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, seeking to initiate insolvency proceedings. The matter was still awaiting adjudication when, on May 16, 2025, it came to be dismissed owing to the absence of the company's counsel.

A restoration plea followed. The company pointed out that its lawyer, Dhruv Dev Gupta, had been appearing before the Supreme Court in another matter on the very same day, which prevented him from attending the NCLT hearing. Despite placing this on record, the tribunal declined to restore the matter on June 9, 2025.

This led Brown Bird Enterprises to move the appellate tribunal, asking for the earlier order to be set aside and its plea to be revived.

Before the NCLAT, it was emphasised that counsel had missed only two hearings, once on March 10, 2025 due to ill health, and again on May 16, 2025 when he was before the Supreme Court. The company argued that such circumstances were beyond its control and that it had backed its explanation with documents, including the Supreme Court order reflecting counsel's presence.

It also assured the appellate tribunal that, if given another chance, it would proceed with the matter without seeking adjournments.

On the other side, counsel for one of the respondents indicated that there was no objection to restoring the proceedings.

The appellate tribunal took note of the limited instances of absence. While observing that it would ordinarily be expected of counsel to seek an adjournment in such situations, it found the explanation offered in this case to be genuine and sufficient.

The June 9, 2025 order was accordingly set aside. The restoration application stands revived, and the NCLT has been asked to hear the matter afresh, after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard and in accordance with law.

The NCLAT made it clear that it has not expressed any view on the merits of the dispute. Parties have been directed to appear before the NCLT on April 22, 2026.