The plea of Restoration/Condonation of Delay is not a matter of right. A Party who is not vigilant may not get a second opportunity – M/s. Raj Trading Company Vs. MARG Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that 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.

Related Posts:

If any Public depositor applies showing due of the debt claiming itself as operational creditor and the Resolution Professional or the Tribunal do not accept the claim on the ground that they are not financial creditor, we allow the appellant to raise the question before the Tribunal and if any adverse decision is given by the Tribunal, it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue before NCLAT- Hind Motors India Ltd. Vs. Adjudicating Authority NCLT, Chandigarh – NCLAT New Delhi

IBC-Case Laws-NCLAT
Scroll to Top