ORDER

(Virtual Mode) 10/04/2023: ‘Heard’, the Learned Counsel, Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, appearing for the ‘Appellant’, in the Instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 377 of 2023. ‘Notice’ to the ‘Respondent’, sent through ‘Speed Post’, by the ‘Office of the Registry’, got returned with an endorsement, ‘Left without Instructions- Returned to Sender’.

Considering the fact that according to the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’, the ‘Notice’, which was sent to the ‘Respondent’, is to the ‘Proper’ and ‘Correct’ address, as found in the Adjudicating Authority’s/ Tribunal’s Records and also in the ‘Ministry of Corporate Affair’s Records’, this ‘Tribunal’, without any haziness, holds that the ‘Service’ is held ‘Sufficient’. The Respondent’, is called ‘Absent’ and the Instant ‘Appeal’, is proceeded further by this ‘Tribunal’, for passing ‘Judgement’.

The Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, in IA(IBC)/482/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019, on the file of the ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court – II, has preferred the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 377 of 2022, before this ‘Tribunal’, assailing the Correctness, validity and Legality of the ‘Impugned Order’ of ‘Dismissal’, made in IA(IBC)482 of 2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019, by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court - II’.

Earlier, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘Tribunal’ in IA(IBC)482/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019 (preferred by the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’) had observed the Following:

“Learned Counsel for the Applicant appeared in person. This Application is filed by the Applicant seeking to restore the Petition CP(IB)598/7/HDB/2019, which has been dismissed on 26.04.2022 for non-prosecution. The Instant IA cannot be entertained for the reason that it is not for the first time that the Petitioner himself has not wanted to prosecute the Petition but on various earlier occasions he has been continuously absent and had not shown keen interest in prosecuting the same. In view of the same a reasoned order was passed before the Petition was Dismissed. Hence, this Petition cannot be maintained and stands dismissed.” According to the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, the matter was posted on 28/04/2022, before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, for ‘Final Arguments’, in C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/201. Due to some ‘Medical Difficulty’, suffered by the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’, a request was made for an ‘Adjournment’, through a ‘Memo’, enclosing in and by which he was advised to take two (2) days rest. Despite a ‘Bonafide’ Request, for ‘Adjournment’, made by the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’, the main C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019, came to be ‘Dismissed’, for ‘Non-Prosecution’, by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench’, with an incorrect Observation that the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’ (Financial Creditor), had made an unsubstantiated request for an ‘Adjournment’, inspite of the fact that he had furnished written advice, by the ‘Physician’ to take two (2) days rest.

It comes to be known that in respect of the ‘Dismissal’ of the main C.P. (IB) No. 598/7/HDB/2019, the ‘Appellant’/ ‘Petitioner’, projected an IA(IBC)/482/2022, as per Rule 11, 48(2) and 58 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking to set aside, the ‘Order’ dated 28/04/2022 and ‘Restoration’, of main ‘Company Petition’ to the file of the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court - II’. But the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court - II’ had ‘Dismissed’ the IA(IBC)/482/2022, through an ‘Impugned Order’, dated 31/05/2022, without assigning ‘Proper’ reasons and also had not appreciated the facts and circumstances, which the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, had projected before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘Tribunal’. As a result, the ‘Tribuna