##PAGE1##

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

25.03.2026

Present: JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ARUN BAROKA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1194 of 2025

Mr. Mukesh Sumermal Sanghvi, Sole Proprietor of Silicon Metal Industries …Appellant

Vs

R. D. Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent

(Arising out of Order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) in Restoration Application No.

19 of 2025 in Company Petition (IB) No. 925 of 2020.) For Appellant: Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocate

For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Ashish Varma, Advocates

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

1. This Appeal is preferred challenging the Order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai Bench, Court-V) dated 21.04.2025 passed in Restoration Application No. 19 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 925 of 2020, by which application filed by the appellant seeking restoration of the Company Petition came to be

dismissed.

1

Facts

2. The broad facts necessary for deciding this Appeal are not in dispute. The appellant had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 against the Respondent, and it was admitted on 26.10.2020. Subsequently, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the parties, the Petition came to be withdrawn by an order dated 16.04.2021 with liberty to revive the proceedings in the event of default of settlement terms. Indeed, Clauses 18 and 19 of the Settlement Agreement expressly provided for revival of the proceedings upon

default to make payment in terms of the settlement.

3. Alleging breach of the settlement and default in payment, the appellant filed Restoration Application No. 19 of 2025 seeking revival of C.P. (IB) No. 925 of 2020. The Adjudicating Authority, by Order dated 21.04.2025, dismissed the Restoration Application, without even issuing notice to the respondent, primarily on the ground that it was filed nearly two years after the last instalment date under the settlement schedule. The appellant, however, disputes the said computation of delay and asserts that the cause of action continued in view of

subsequent payments and acknowledgments.

4. The impugned Order records that it was “ Delivered on 21.04.2025 ” and notes the appearance of counsel for both parties. The Order was hosted on the official website of the Adjudicating Authority on 29.04.2025. The present Appeal has been filed on 10.06.2025. The immediate issue is whether the appeal has been

instituted within the time prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code?

2

Appellant’s Submissions

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that:

a) On the issue of delay of filing the appeal, though the impugned Order bears

the date 21.04.2025, it was uploaded on the official website only on 29.04.2025, and therefore, limitation ought to be computed from that date. It is submitted that the appeal having been filed within 45 days from 29.04.2025, the delay, if any, is within the condonable limit. It was further urged that the appellant could not have acted upon the impugned order until it was made available on the official website. An Additional Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant placing on record the date of

uploading of the Order as 29.04.2025.

b) The liberty granted by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated

16.04.2021 for reviving the company petition contingent upon the failure of settlement was unconditional and that it was not subject to any rigid time frame. At any rate, the application for restoration was filed in time. The last payment was made on 22.02.2023. This has to be read with the email of the respondent dated 27.06.2023 and the appellant’s response dated 09.08.2023 constitute uncontroverted documentary evidence evidencing repeated acknowledgments of liability and requests for time under the settlement Agreement. And it extended the limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Indeed, appella