AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
The present application I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 is an application filed by the Applicant praying for condonation of 105 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025.
Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2025 and the Respondent was allowed three weeks’ time to file their reply.
The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the refiling delay was caused by genuine reasons on account of time taken in the coordination between the Advocate on Record (“AOR” in short) who was located at Ahmedabad while the clerk was situated in New Delhi. Time was also consumed as the Counsel was travelling abroad during May, 2025 which was followed by closure of the NCLAT Registry due to vacations in June, 2025. Further steps to cure the defects were impeded on account of medical issues faced both by the Applicant and the clerk of the AOR which compounded the delay. All these factors were beyond the control of the Applicant and hence the cumulative delay of 105 days in refiling the appeal deserves to be condoned.
Rebutting the explanation offered by the Applicant substantiating the refiling delay, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the grounds taken by the Appellant in seeking condonation of 105 days delay in refiling of the appeal. It was contended that the Appeal continued to remain in defects for a long time in the initial stages of filing with the Applicant not displaying due promptitude and seriousness in making endeavours to cure the defects and despite getting several opportunities, thereafter the Applicant failed to refile a defect-free appeal. It was also asserted that the reasons for delay as highlighted cannot be regarded as sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay as these are the usual run of the mill excuses resorted to for seeking condonation of delay in refiling which cannot be permitted.
We have heard both sides and perused materials placed on record carefully.
To come to our considered view on the prayer made in the IA No. 5929 of 2025 seeking refiling delay condonation, we have looked at the explanation offered by the Applicant in the application for the delay in refiling in the refiling delay condonation application which is as reproduced below:
“4.That the Advocate on Record ("AOR") of the Appellants in the present matter is from Ahmedabad and the clerk of the AOR is in New Delhi. That time was consumed in coordinating between the AOR of the appellants and its clerk.
5.That when the defect was raised by the Ld. Registry in May, 2025, at that point of time the AOR of the appellants was not in country and was travelling abroad in view of the vacation in the courts in Ahmedabad. Therefore, the email issued by the Ld. Registry was missed.
6.Thereafter, due to vacations in the courts at Delhi, in the month of June, the clerk of the AOR was not available and therefore there were issues in coordination for refiling of the appeal.
7.Further, the readable copies of certain documents could not be procured in a timely manner since the appellant was not keeping well since July, 2025. That the appellant is having cervical issues and is also having problem in walking. Since, the medical condition of the appellant was not getting better, the appellant had approached an orthopaedic in the month of August, 2025, who had advised the appellant for rest of four weeks and for further investigations. Copy of the medical reports of the appellant is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- [A]
8.Further, when the legible/ readable copies of the documents were sent to the clerk of AOR at Delhi, the clerk was not keeping well and due to that further delay was caused in refiling the present appeal.”
The Applicant has also filed an additional-affidavit to explain the steps taken by the Applicant to rectify the defects which we find to be a reiteration of the same reasons which were set out in the refiling delay condonation application. As such we do not find any other exceptional or additional reason which has been elaborated in the additional affidavit.
We find that the Applicant has attributed a large part of the delay to the time consumed in coordination exercise between the counsel and his clerk on grounds of not being co-located. This ground of delay does not persuade us sufficiently enough since lack of geographical proximity cannot be touted to justify such protracted procedural delays. While the delay caused on account of medical conditions of the Applicant is acceptable in view of the fact that the same has been substantiated with medical report placed at Annexure-A of the refiling delay condonation application, we notice that purported ill health of the clerk of the AOR has also been trumped up albeit without any supporting medical report. Seen together we do not find sufficient and cogent grounds having been raised to explain the delay. We are not inclined to agree with the explanation tendered by the Applicant and condonation of delay in refiling in the present facts of the case does not meet our countenance.
In view of the above discussions, we do not see any merit in the application filed for seeking condonation of 105 days delay in refiling the appeal as no sufficient grounds have been made out for allowing the condonation. Accordingly, IA No. 5929 of 2025 is rejected. The Memo of Appeal is also rejected. No costs.