A litigant cannot be penalized for the mistake or dereliction of their counsel. The limitation period for restoration under Rule 48 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, is not an absolute bar and can be condoned using the Tribunal's inherent powers under Rule 11 to ensure justice.

JUDGEMENT

Per Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

The brief facts are, that the appellant was an applicant to the proceedings under Section 7 of I&B Code which was drawn as against the respondent/corporate debtor. Those proceedings were registered before NCLT as CP(IB) 2689/ND/2019. Owing to the absence of the learned Counsel of the appellant, the company petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by an Order that, was passed on 17.03.2025.

2. Seeking its recall, a restoration application was preferred by the appellant by filing the same before the Registry on 15.09.2025 contending thereof that, the reasons for non-appearance on the date, has been that, since a wrong timing had been noted of sitting of the Bench and because of the fact that, the matter was shown to be listed before the Bench at 02.30 p.m. but, however, on 17.03.2025, the Bench assembled much earlier at 10.30 a.m. Hence the case skipped attention of the Counsel. It is because of which, the advocate could not appear when the matter was called and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. Seeking its recall, a restoration application was preferred by the appellant by filing the same on 15.09.2025, praying to recall the Order dated 17.03.2025 and to restore the company petition to its original number. The reason that was attributed therein was that the absence of 17.03.2025 was on account of the Counsel’s failure to appear and the absence was not deliberate or intentional. It is this application which came up for consideration before the learned Tribunal and has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.10.2025.

4. The learned Tribunal took the view that, since the application for restoration has been preferred under Rule 11 to be read with Rule 48 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 , the recall of the Order dated 17.03.2025, by virtue of the restoration application, ought to have been accompanied by a delay condonation application since the same was preferred after sufficient long time, after the dismissal order. Hence, the Restoration Application No. 95/ND/2025 was rejected.

5. The Counsel for the appellant had come up with a case that, the view taken by the learned Tribunal that the application was required to be preferred with a delay and that remained unexplained, may not be acceptable for the reason being that, with the restoration application, being preferred on 03.10.2025, the same was preferred along with a delay condonation application, which was duly supported with an affidavit accompanied by a separate Court fees. But, however, on the date fixed, the recall application was listed, but the supporting delay condonation application, despite the same being filed along with the recall application, was not registered and resultantly was not listed before the learned Tribunal, when the Order of 09.10.2025 was passed. Consequently, the learned Tribunal has rejected the restoration application by an order of 09.10.2025.

6. So far as the aspect pertaining to the limitation is concerned, for the purposes of preferring of a recall application in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 48 , which is extracted hereunder. Though it contemplates filing of an application within 30 days from the date of dismissal. But it does not create a specific