Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, has held that a litigant cannot seek restoration of a dismissed application by invoking a “liberal approach” when it has failed to act within the time prescribed under law. Refusing to revive an application filed by Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., the Tribunal observed that while courts ordinarily adopt a lenient view in restoration matters, such indulgence cannot be extended to parties who knowingly delay pursuing their remedies.

Also Read: No Preferential Transfer Or Moratorium Breach When Payment Not Made From Corporate Debtor’s Assets: NCLT Mumbai Rejects RP’s Bid To Recover ₹325 Crore Paid To Ericsson

The ruling was delivered on November 13, 2025, by a coram comprising Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah. The Bench emphasised that the right to be heard cannot be used as a shield by a litigant who has been negligent and has not acted with due diligence within the statutory time limits.

The dispute arose from the insolvency proceedings of Implex Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd., which was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process in March 2018 on an application filed by State Bank of India. Since no resolution plan was approved, the company was ordered into liquidation in February 2019.

In December 2021, Eastern Power Distribution Company approached the Tribunal seeking a direction that an amount of ₹20.72 crore, allegedly due for electricity supplied to the corporate debtor during the insolvency period, be treated as CIRP costs. However, the proceedings did not progress. On several hearing dates, no appearance was made on behalf of Eastern Power, and ultimately, the application was dismissed for default on November 7, 2023.

Also Read: NCLT Ahmedabad: Complaints Against Auditors Or Company Secretaries Cannot Justify SFIO Probe Into Company; Petition Dismissed For Lack Of Locus Standi

Nearly eight months later, in July 2024, Eastern Power filed a restoration application seeking revival of the dismissed case. The company attributed the delay to lapses on the part of its earlier advocate, stating that he had repeatedly failed to appear before the Tribunal and had not taken necessary steps to pursue the matter. It was further contended that Eastern Power is a government-owned utility based in Visakhapatnam and that it had engaged a new counsel in March 2024 after obtaining a no-objection certificate from the previous lawyer.

The Tribunal, however, found these explanations insufficient. It noted that under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, an application for restoration must be filed within thirty days from the date of dismissal. In the present case, the application was dismissed on November 7, 2023, and the restoration plea ought to have been filed on or before December 7, 2023. The Tribunal observed that Eastern Power was aware of the dismissal but failed to take steps within the prescribed period.

While acknowledging that restoration applications are generally considered with a liberal approach to ensure that parties are not denied a hearing on merits, the Bench clarified that such discretion is not unbridled. It observed that a litigant who deliberately or negligently delays invoking available remedies cannot seek to take advantage of judicial leniency.

Also Read: NCLT Delhi: Promoter Undertakings to Infuse Equity or Retain Control Are Not Guarantees; Canara Bank’s CIRP Plea Against RattanIndia Dismissed

The Tribunal held that no “sufficient cause” had been shown to justify condonation of the delay and that blaming the earlier counsel, without demonstrating prompt corrective action, could not be accepted as a valid explanation. It reiterated that procedural timelines under the NCLT Rules cannot be rendered meaningless by routinely condoning delays. In view of these findings, the NCLT Kolkata Bench declined to condone the delay and dismissed the restoration application, holding that a delayed litigant cannot claim the benefit of a liberal approach when statutory timelines have been consciously ignored.

Appearance

For Applicant: Sr. Advocate Joy Saha with Advocates Sidhartha Sharma, Rishav Dutt, Aman Kataruka

For Liquidator: Advocates Rahul Anddy, Aditya Goopta

For Applicant in IA No. 1207/2023: Advocates Tanvi Luhariwala, Madhuja Barman

For SBI: Advocates Deblina Lahiri, Mrinmoy Chatterjee

For R-3 in IA 845/2021: Advocate Shreyash Basu Dasgupta

Cause Title: Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd vs Samir Kr. Bhattacharya

Case No: IA No. 1570 of 2024 in I.A. (IB) No. 1061 of 2024 in CP(IB) No. 176/KB/2018

Coram: Judicial Member Labh Singh, Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah