Tribunal emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules under NCLT Rules, 2016 Rule 48(2), underscoring that mere change of counsel and communication gaps do not justify restoration without "sufficient cause."
In a recent decision dated October 16, 2026, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, dismissed the restoration application filed by Mr. Anil Tukaram Sawarkar seeking revival of an application previously dismissed for want of prosecution. The dismissal of the original application, I.A. (IB)/5139(MB)/2024, was due to non-appearance on the scheduled hearing date of August 24, 2026.
The applicant's counsel contended that the dismissal resulted from a change of counsel and lack of effective communication, which led to the failure to appear before the Tribunal. However, the Bench, comprising Mr. Vinay Goel (Member Judicial) and Mr. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Member Technical), held that these reasons did not amount to "sufficient cause" under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which governs restoration of applications dismissed for default.
The Tribunal observed that the matter had been pending since November 19, 2024, with multiple adjournments granted in the past for various reasons, including non-appearance of counsel. On August 18, 2026, the Tribunal explicitly recorded the applicant's non-appearance and warned that failure to appear on August 24 would result in dismissal. Despite this, neither the applicant nor any authorized representative appeared on the adjourned date, leading to dismissal for want of prosecution.
Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Rafiq & Anr. vs. Munshilal & Anr. (1981 AIR 140) and the NCLAT's ruling in M/s. Lok Sewak Leasing & Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. GBL Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that restoration is mandated only if the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause for non-appearance within thirty days of dismissal. Mere dissatisfaction with the dismissal order or procedural delay without legal infirmity or violation of natural justice principles does not justify recall.
The Tribunal emphasized the need to balance fairness with the necessity to prevent litigants from controlling proceedings or causing undue delay by remaining absent. It concluded that the principles of natural justice were duly observed, with sufficient opportunity afforded to the applicant, and no valid ground existed to disturb the dismissal order. Consequently, the restoration application was dismissed.
This judgment underscores the strict procedural discipline required in NCLT proceedings and clarifies that litigants must proactively manage their representation and communication to avoid adverse consequences.
Bottom Line:
NCLT Rules, 2016 Rule 48(2) - Restoration of application dismissed for default - Mere change of counsel and lack of communication, despite prior opportunities and specific warning of dismissal for non-appearance, do not constitute "sufficient cause" - Restoration rightly refused.
Statutory provision(s):
NCLT Rules, 2016 Rule 48(2)
Mr. Anil Tukaram Sawarkar v. Bank of Maharashtra, (NCLT)(Mumbai) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999311
