Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

GULABCHANDRABHAI TEJDHARBHAI TIWARI vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LIMITED on 5 January 2026

1Exh-07MA 71 of 2025**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD****Present: Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, Presiding Officer****MISC. APPLICATION No.71 of 2025 (For Restoration)****IN****MISC. APPLICATION No.62of 2025 (For Condonation of Delay)****IN****S.A. (Diary) No. \_\_\_\_\_ of 2025****Date of Order: 05/01/2026**

Gulabchandrabhai Tejdarbhai Tiwari & Anr. .... Applicants **Versus**

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. ....Respondent **Present:** Mr. G.P. Baghel, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants Mr. V.N. Sevak, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent

**ORDER**

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsels for both the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.71/2025 moved by Applicants for condoning delay in filing Misc. Application for Restoration of M.A. No.62/2025 have been heard.

2. 2. The present Misc. Application being M.A. No.71/2025 has been filed by the Applicants for Restoration of M.A.No.62/2025 on the ground that the Advocate for the Applicants is not regularly practicing before this Tribunal. Therefore, he was not aware of listing of the matter and hence, the Advocate for the Applicants could not remain present at the time of 2MA 71 of 2025

hearing of M.A.No.62/2025. When the Advocate for the Applicants checked the status of the case, he came to know about dismissal of the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A.No.62/2025 vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed by this Tribunal.

Page 1 of 2

1. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that absence of Advocate for the Applicants on 10.10.2025 was not willful or deliberate and he tendered apology for not remaining present before this Tribunal on 10.10.2025. Therefore, he prayed for recalling the order passed by this Tribunal on 10.10.2025 and to restore M.A.No.62/2025.

2. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent ARCIL has opposed the present Application on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the Application for are false and neither legal nor sufficient and hence, Application deserves to be rejected. It appears from perusal of pleadings of both the parties that the M.A.No.62/2025 was dismissed by this Tribunal for default on account of absence of Advocate appearing for the Applicants. It is a settled legal position that a litigant should not be allowed to suffer on account of default on the part of the Advocate. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the present Application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. Hence, following order be passed: -

- • Application for restoration being M.A.No.71/2025 is hereby allowed.

- • Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by this Tribunal in M.A. No.62/2025 is hereby recalled and M.A. No.62/2025 to file.

(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, AHMEDABAD

Saloni

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead