Back
NCLT Mumbai Holds Cannot Excuse in Insolvency
The has delivered a significant ruling on the procedural rigour required in insolvency proceedings, holding that or the fact that an applicant is itself cannot substitute the requirement of demonstrating for . The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar, dismissed an application filed by liquidator seeking restoration of ’s insolvency petition against under .
The decision underscores that the insolvency jurisdiction under the IBC is a , and applicants must satisfy procedural and limitation requirements. The Tribunal’s observations serve as a cautionary note for litigants and liquidators who may rely on financial distress alone to justify procedural lapses.
Background of the Case
had initially filed an insolvency petition against under Section 9 of the IBC, claiming outstanding dues of approximately ₹53.30 lakh. On , the petition was dismissed for non-appearance. The liquidator, , thereafter filed a restoration application (Restoration Application No. 43/2024), which was itself dismissed for default on .
Almost a year later, on , Trivedi filed a fresh application seeking restoration, claiming that he had not received notice after the matter was transferred from one Bench to another. He also submitted that KBK Chem-Engineering had acknowledged the outstanding dues, arguing that the caused by non-payment warranted restoration of the petition.
Tribunal’s Key Observations
The NCLT rejected the liquidator’s contentions, emphasizing that the IBC framework demands strict adherence to procedural timelines and diligent pursuit of remedies. The Bench observed:
“The insolvency jurisdiction under the Code is a and the Applicant is required to satisfy the procedural and limitation requirements applicable to the invocation of such remedy. The fact that the Applicant is itself , or that it claims to be suffering on account of non-payment by the Corporate Debtor, may explain its interest in pursuing the claim, but cannot substitute the requirement of demonstrating for the .”
The Tribunal further noted that the present application was filed almost one year after the dismissal of the earlier restoration application, and the applicant had not satisfactorily explained the circumstances that prevented it from approaching the Tribunal immediately after the dismissal. The order stated:
“The present Application has thereafter been filed only on 06.08.2025, i.e. almost one year after the dismissal of the earlier Restoration Application. The Applicant has not satisfactorily explained the circumstances, which prevented it from approaching this Tribunal immediately after the dismissal of Restoration Application No. 43/2024. The Application is conspicuously silent as to when the Applicant acquired knowledge of the order dated 28.08.2024 and what steps were taken between 28.08.2024 and 06.08.2025.”
The Bench also found that the liquidator’s claim of ignorance regarding the transfer of the matter was untenable. Trivedi had appeared before Bench No. 4 on , and therefore could not claim complete lack of knowledge about the transfer. The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a continuous and to pursue the proceedings.
Legal Analysis: and Diligence
The ruling reinforces the well-settled principle that is a cornerstone of the IBC regime. The concept of “” under the Code requires more than a mere assertion of . Courts and tribunals have consistently held that the explanation for non-appearance must be reasonable, credible, and supported by evidence. Here, the liquidator’s claim of did not explain why he could not appear on the earlier dates or why he delayed the restoration application by nearly a year.
The Tribunal’s reasoning aligns with the broader jurisprudence under the IBC, where timelines are treated as sacrosanct. The IBC was designed to ensure of corporate insolvencies, and any laxity in procedural adherence can undermine the scheme of the Code. The decision also highlights that the fact that the applicant itself is does not grant it any special dispensation; rather, it imposes an additional duty on the liquidator to act with utmost diligence.
Implications for Insolvency Practice
This judgment carries significant implications for insolvency professionals, liquidators, and creditors pursuing claims under the IBC. It sends a clear message that procedural default, especially , will not be excused on grounds of alone. Liquidators must ensure that they actively monitor their cases, respond to notices, and promptly seek remedies when petitions are dismissed.
The ruling also underscores the importance of maintaining a record of communication and compliance with tribunal procedures. In an era where NCLT benches frequently transfer matters, parties must remain vigilant and proactively seek updates rather than relying on passive notice receipt.
Furthermore, the decision clarifies that the mere existence of an underlying debt does not entitle a party to bypass procedural requirements. Creditors and liquidators must treat the IBC as a rigorous , not a discretionary tool.
Conclusion
The NCLT Mumbai’s dismissal of the restoration application serves as a reminder that procedural discipline is paramount in insolvency proceedings. While the Tribunal expressly clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of Cogent Engineers’ underlying claim against KBK Chem-Engineering, the procedural bar proved fatal. For legal professionals practicing in the insolvency space, this case reinforces the need for meticulous case management and timely action. may be a compelling narrative, but without for procedural lapses, it cannot resurrect a dead petition.
