**NCLAT: Lawyer Engaged by Statutory Body Cannot Hand Over Brief to Junior and Stop Appearing** The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that a lawyer specifically engaged to represent a statutory corporation cannot simply hand over a case brief to a junior lawyer and stop appearing in the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasised that counsel engaged to pursue a matter on behalf of a statutory organisation has a professional responsibility to ensure proper representation. A three-member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL). The dispute concerned the company's claim for approximately ₹20.72 crore in outstanding electricity charges against a corporate debtor undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). **Background of the Dispute** The electricity distribution company had supplied power to a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency proceedings. According to the company, ₹20,72,84,722 remained outstanding towards electricity charges incurred during the CIRP period. The company filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, seeking recovery of the outstanding amount. However, on 8 November 2023, the application was dismissed for non-prosecution after no counsel appeared on behalf of the company. The company subsequently sought restoration of the application. It alleged that the lawyer it had engaged, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, had entrusted the matter to a junior colleague and had himself stopped appearing. The company also stated that it faced difficulty engaging replacement counsel because the earlier lawyer had not provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC). **NCLAT's Observations on Counsel's Professional Responsibility** The NCLAT observed that a lawyer specifically engaged to represent a statutory corporation cannot merely delegate the brief to a junior and cease appearing in the matter. The Tribunal considered the circumstances materially different from an inadvertent mistake or ordinary negligence. It characterised the alleged conduct as deliberate and intentional, observing that the arrangement was not permissible in the circumstances before it. The Bench stressed that a statutory organisation engaging a particular counsel is entitled to expect that the counsel will take responsibility for pursuing the proceedings. The Tribunal also referred to Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which addresses the circumstances in which another advocate may enter appearance when an earlier advocate's engagement remains on record. The issue was relevant because the company said it had been unable to secure the earlier counsel's NOC to facilitate a change of representation. **Litigants Should Not Suffer for Deliberate Non-Appearance** The Tribunal noted that professional disagreements, fee disputes and other differences between lawyers may sometimes affect the effective conduct of litigation. However, it emphasised that a litigant should not be made to suffer because of the deliberate non-appearance or conduct of its counsel. The Bench distinguished the circumstances from a routine procedural lapse and considered the impact of the lawyer's conduct on the company's ability to pursue its claim. It also considered the question of restoring the application despite the delay. **₹20.72 Crore Claim Restored** Allowing the appeal in *Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Daulat Resolution Services Pvt. Ltd.*, the NCLAT set aside the relevant order refusing restoration and recalled the dismissal of the company's application for non-prosecution. The Tribunal directed that the company's application seeking recovery of the outstanding electricity dues be considered by the NCLT on its merits. The restoration does not itself amount to a final determination that the entire amount is recoverable; the underlying claim remains subject to adjudication. **Key Takeaway** The ruling underscores the professional responsibility of specifically engaged counsel to pursue proceedings diligently and highlights that litigants should not automatically lose the opportunity to have their claims considered on merits because of deliberate non-appearance by their lawyer. **Case Details** * **Case:** *Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Daulat Resolution Services Pvt. Ltd.* * **Case Number:** Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 347 of 2026 * **Forum:** National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) * **Bench:** Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey * **Subject:** Insolvency proceedings, professional responsibility of counsel and restoration of an application dismissed for non-prosecution.