GUPTA RAJBHADUR Vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order pronounced on 10.08.2017 It is an application filed under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for restoration of the Company Petition dismissed for default on 13.6.2017 by this Bench for the Petitioner consecutively remained absent on 9.6.2017 and 13.6.2017.

(2.) By looking at this application, it appears that this applicant filed this Company Petition on 5.6.2017 for recovery of the operational debt u/s 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He says that ever since he filed this petition, he kept on visiting the website of NCLT from 7.6.2017 but by inadvertence, he was unable to find listing of this company petition until before he noticed on 14.6.2017 that his case was posted to 13.6.2017 on 9.6.2017 orderirg that if the applicant again remained absent on 13.6.2017, his Petition would be dismissed for default on 13.6.2017. As soon as he came to know of this fact, on coming over to NCLT to know what happened on 13.6.2017, he was apprised that his company petition was dismissed for default.

(3.) On hearing the submission from the petitioner side and the corporate debtor side on restoration application filed, this Bench has ascertained the fact of this matter coming for hearing on 9.6.2017, thereafter posting this matter on 9.6.2017 recording the absence of the petitioner with a further direction that this matter would be dismissed for default if the petitioner remained absent on 13.6.2017 and on 13.6,2017 when the petitioner remained absent, the company petition was dismissed for default on 13.6.2017. For this Petitioner has consecutively remained absent for two hearings, this Bench dismissed this company petition for default on 13.6.2017. Thereafter, this Petitioner filed this Application for Restoration on 23.6.2017 stating that this Petitioner failed to appear owing to inadvertence therefore, the Petitioner seeks restoration of this Company Petition.