CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Praful Kanhaiyalal Talera Vs Dynamic Logistics Private Limited

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 19 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 NCLT CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kishore Vemulappali, Member (J) · Prabhat Kumar, Member (T)
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Companies Act, 2013 — Section 241(1), 244(1)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
RST.A/03(MB)2023 In CP/222(MB)2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 525 words

RST.A/03(MB)2023

1.

Mr. Manoj Wad, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner present. None present for the Respondent.

2.

The Applicant/Petitioner has filed this Application for restoration of CP/222(MB)2021 along with CA-304/2021 and CA-306/2021, which was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 31.01.2023 on the ground of non-prosecution.

3.

The Applicant submits that the CP/222(MB)2021 along with CA-304/2021 and CA-306/2021 were dismissed for non-prosecution by this Bench after holding that the Petitioner is deliberately trying to prolong the matter and not interested to pursue this case.

4.

The Applicant submits that the Applicant and his Counsel could not appear for hearing on 31.03.2023 before this Bench as they did not receive the intimation email from e-filing@nclt.go.in regarding the date of the hearing, and hence, being unaware of the fact that the hearing was scheduled and was supposed to take place on 31.03.2023, the Applicant as well as his Counsel could not appear for the hearing. He further submits that the Applicant has remained present for the hearings on 27.10.2021 and 17.12.2021 respectively. He couldn’t remain present for the hearing dated 20.10.2021, as the order dated 09.09.2021 stated that the next date of hearing was 27.10.2021, however, the hearing was moved up to 20.10.2021 for the reasons unknown to the Applicant.

5.

Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the absence of the Applicant on 31.01.2023 was neither intentional nor wilful, therefore the Applicant has filed the present application for restoration of CP/222(MB)2021 along with CA-304/2021 and CA-306/2021.

6.

This Bench perused the daily order file and finds that the Company Petition and connected matter could not be taken up on 13.04.2022, 30.06.2022, 08.09.2022 and 01.12.2022 due to paucity of time. However, the Petitioner was represented by his Counsel on 17.12.2021, when also the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time. However, the Petitioner was not present on 20.10.2021 when CA-304/2021 was listed. It is observed by this Bench that the Petitioner was present on 27.10.2021 when CP/222(MB)2021 along with CA-304/2021 and CA-306/2021 were listed. This Bench finds that on five occasions prior to 31.01.2023 the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time, and the Petitioner was represented by Counsel in the first out of these five hearings. The next date of hearing was 31.01.2023, when the Petitioner was not present. This led the Bench to conclude that Petitioner is trying to prolong the matter. However, on hearing the Counsel in this application, this Bench finds that Petitioner is serious to pursue the matter and was not negligent on earlier occasions.

7.

In view of the above facts, this Bench allows the restoration of CP/222(MB)2021 along with CA-304/2021 and CA-306/2021 after recalling its order dated 31.01.2023 and directs the Registry to list the matter for further consideration on 07.08.2023. The Applicant is directed to serve the petition to the Respondents again. Registry is directed to issue Court Notice in CP/222(MB)2021 intimating them the next date of hearing and requiring them to file their reply within two weeks after receipt of the Notice. Accordingly, RST.A/03(MB)2023 is allowed and disposed of.

8.

List CP/222(MB)2021 along with CA-304/2021 and CA-306/2021 on 07.08.2023.