Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 18.09.2026

Case Overview

This appeal arose from an order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench) in IA (Rest.)/30(AHM)2025. The appellants, Vivekanand Rai and Probir Rakshit, were former employees/consultants of the respondent, Chemie-Tech Projects Ltd., a private limited company involved in providing EPC Solutions and Services with offices in Ahmedabad and Sharjah.

The appellants had initially filed a company petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (C.P.(IB)/13(AHM)2025) against the respondent, claiming unpaid salary dues. Appellant No. 1, Vivekanand Rai, claimed Rs. 55,90,000/- (Rs. 42,50,000/- for 17 months of unpaid salary and Rs. 13,40,000/- for 20 months of unpaid Provident Fund). Appellant No. 2, Probir Rakshit, claimed Rs. 52,57,216/- in unpaid salary arrears, from which TDS deductions were to be made.

This company petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.05.2025 because the appellants' counsel was absent due to a sudden medical emergency. The appellants filed a restoration application (I.A. (Restoration Application)/30(AHM)2025) on 15.07.2025, seeking to recall the dismissal order under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The NCLT dismissed this restoration application, leading to the present appeal before the NCLAT.

The core legal issue was the appellants' failure to file the restoration application within the statutory 30-day limitation period prescribed under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The application was filed on the 76th day (77 days late). Crucially, it was not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of this delay. The appellants' primary ground for restoration was their counsel's medical emergency on the hearing date (05.05.2025). However, they failed to provide any medical documents or a certificate to substantiate this claim. The NCLAT also noted that an email sent by the appellants to the NCLT Registrar on 09.05.2025, explaining the absence, was not a valid legal process for such explanations.

The NCLAT concurred with the NCLT's reasoning. It emphasized that the first step for the appellants was to satisfactorily explain the 77-day delay by filing a formal delay condonation application. Since this was not done, the restoration application itself was not maintainable and could not be considered on its merits. The tribunal held that an unsubstantiated claim of a medical emergency, without supporting evidence and without seeking condonation for the resultant delay, cannot be considered a "sufficient cause" for restoration under the law.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the NCLT's order dated 24.09.2025. The restoration application remains dismissed, and consequently, the original company petition (C.P.(IB)/13(AHM)2025) under Section 9 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Chemie-Tech Projects Ltd. also stands dismissed. The appellants' claim for unpaid salaries remains unadjudicated through the insolvency process.

Topics: NCLAT Judgment, Limitation Law, Restoration Application