AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
The present application I.A. No. 318 of 2026 is an application filed praying for condonation of 140 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 137 of 2026.
Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2026. Respondent No. 1 had accepted notice and was granted two weeks’ time to file reply and rejoinder, if any, was directed to be filed by the Appellant within one week thereafter.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that though the Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 2810 of 2021 in Company (IB) No. 2728/ND/2019 had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, defects were subsequently notified by this Registry on 01.08.2025 which required substantial rectification and compliance. It was contended that extensive defects were pointed out by the Registry which entailed procurement and filing of legible copies of voluminous annexures, restructuring and recompilation of records, re-pagination, cross-referencing of annexures and curing deficiencies pertaining to documents which were not readily available with the Applicant and therefore considerable time was consumed in collecting, arranging and compiling proper and legible copies of the relevant records. The delay was also occasioned by the fact that the Applicant had been suffering from prolonged health complications including stomach and liver ailments and as he was undergoing treatment at ILBS Hospital, Delhi, his movement remained restricted during the relevant period. Reliance was also placed on medical records pertaining to November and December 2024 relating to suspected thalassemia and allied ailments. It was further submitted that the Applicant had to attend to family obligations arising out of treatment of his sister-in-law’s mother who was undergoing breast cancer treatment and thereafter had to travel to the United Kingdom from 02.09.2025 till 08.10.2025 for unavoidable livelihood and professional reasons. It was additionally submitted that upon return from abroad, the Applicant suffered from severe back pain and recurring health complications which further delayed the process of curing the defects. Further the demise of the Applicant’s mother in April 2025 and need to perform the connected rituals by the Applicant was also highlighted. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that delay got compounded further as certain personal difficulties were also faced by the Counsel for the Applicant on account of hospitalization of a family member due to cardiac complications. According to the Applicant, despite continuous bonafide efforts having been undertaken for curing the defects and complying with the Registry objections, the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant and therefore deserved to be condoned in the interests of justice particularly when the appeal petition itself had been filed within limitation.
Vehemently opposing the grounds articulated by the Applicant in defence of the delay which had occurred in refiling, Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Applicant has failed to adduce sufficient and satisfactory grounds justifying the extraordinarily protracted delay of 140 days in refiling the Appeal. The conduct of the Applicant throughout this long span of 140 days demonstrates negligence, lack of diligence and casual prosecution of the appeal. The explanations furnished by the Applicant of his own alleged illness and that of his relatives, non-availability of documents, unavoidable foreign travel, family obligations and logistical inconvenience are not only vague, routine and generalised excuses but is unsupported by fool-proof documentary evidence. No continuous or date-wise explanation has been furnished explaining the entire period during which the defects remained uncured. The Applicant has clearly failed to establish that the delay occurred due to circumstances genuinely beyond his control.
It was also contended that the Applicant has failed to disclose the precise defects pointed out by the Registry, the dates on which steps were undertaken for curing these defects and the exact period consumed in procuring the alleged legible copies. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 and State of West Bengal Vs. Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 to contend that sufficient cause must be explained for the entire period of delay and that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be construed liberally in absence of due diligence. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Adisri Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India in CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2022, wherein this Tribunal declined to condone prolonged refiling delay in absence of satisfactory explanation and held that condonation of delay in refiling is not available merely for the asking and that the Applicant must demonstrate continuous diligence and circumstances beyond its control. Most of the documents annexed with the appeal being either electronic records or documents already accessible to the Applicant, the explanation regarding time taken in procurement and compilation of documents is misplaced. According to the Respondent, the medical documents relied upon by the Applicant do not disclose any prolonged hospitalization or complete incapacitation preventing the Applicant from instructing Counsel or curing the defects within reasonable time.
We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the Applicant has been able to show sufficient cause warranting condonation of 140 days’ delay in refiling of the Appeal.
It is the case of the Applicant that the objections raised by the Respondent are wholly misconceived and contrary to the settled position of law governing condonation of delay in refiling matters. Since Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules is merely directory in nature hence even if defects were not cured within seven days, the appeal could not be rejected. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Tribunal in V.R. Ashok Rao Vs. TDT Copper Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 780 of 2022, wherein it was held that the period prescribed under Rule 26(2) is not mandatory and delay in refiling can be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. In the present case too, the delay was not intentional or deliberate since the Applicant had made diligent, relentless and bonafide efforts for curing the defects pointed out by the Registry. Further reliance was also placed upon several judgments of this Tribunal wherein a liberal approach has been consistently adopted in condoning delay in refiling particularly where health concerns, logistical difficulties and procurement of documents were involved as in Jagadish Vs. Oyo Hotels & Homes Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1408 of 2022; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. & Ors. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1254 of 2023; Compliance Construction Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rishabh Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1108 of 2022; Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Vishal Soyamul Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 214 of 2023; Bhagwati Singh Vs. Incab Industries Ltd. in CA(AT) (Ins) No. 914 of 2022.
Per contra it was contended by the Respondent that there are several judgments of this Tribunal like in Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. H.L. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1700 of 2024 wherein this Tribunal declined to condone prolonged delay in refiling by observing that permitting unexplained and inordinate delay without convincing reasons would defeat the expeditious and time-bound insolvency resolution framework contemplated under the IBC. Drawing support from the judgment of this Tribunal in Adisri Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India in CA(AT)(Ins) Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2022, it was contended that delay in refiling cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner and that the Applicant is required to satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay by demonstrating continuous diligence and bonafide efforts in curing the defects pointed out by the Registry.
We are aware that this Tribunal has affirmed time and again the principle that refiling delay condonation application deserves to be handled in a liberal and lenient manner so that substantive justice does not get derailed by procedural sleight of hand. Nevertheless, merely because an Appeal was initially filed within limitation, this Tribunal has not to shut its eyes in condoning prolonged delay in refiling unless satisfactory and sufficient explanation to justify the delay has been put forth by the concerned party. Thus, condonation of delay is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case and no uniform, strait-jacketed formula can be followed in this regard. Hence, what needs to be seen is whether the Applicant has provided satisfactory, sufficient, credible and coherent explanation and credible defect-wise and date-wise explanation for the delay.
It was canvassed by the Applicant that when the Registry had specifically pointed out defects relating to illegibility of documents and the need to arrange proper and readable copies of the records, the time taken in completing this process constituted sufficient cause. Despite the Applicant remaining persistently vigilant in curing the defects pointed out by the Registry, unavoidable circumstances triggered by the Applicant’s health-related complications including treatment at ILBS Hospital leading to restricted movement; other family members also facing medical issues; time taken to perform necessary rituals besides need to travel abroad to fulfil professional obligations besides logistical inconvenience and difficulties encountered in procuring complete and legible records had cumulatively added to the delay. It was urged that if these genuine impediments are not taken into cognisance while considering of delay in refiling, the cause of substantial justice would get defeated.
As regards the plea taken with regard to illness related delay, we notice that the Applicant has relied upon medical prescriptions which all belong to November-December 2024 period. On the other hand, the impugned order and the appeal came to be filed at a later date in June-July 2025. Furthermore, it is contended by the Respondent that the medical documents relied upon by the Applicant including the treatment at ILBS hospital during July-August 2025 do not indicate complete incapacitation or immobilisation of the Applicant which could have prevented the Applicant from taking effective steps in curing the defects for such an extended period. Mere medical consultation or treatment does not render any person wholly incapable of coordinating with his legal counsel or create a situation of total inability to prosecute their lis.
We further notice that the Applicant has specifically pleaded that he had travelled to the United Kingdom from 02.09.2025 till 08.10.2025 for unavoidable professional and livelihood-related reasons. Quite apart from the fact that it has been pointed out by the Respondent that no documentary material has been placed on record like passport entries, visa documents, air-tickets, boarding passes, immigration records or any contemporaneous material evidencing the alleged foreign travel to the United Kingdom, what we find inherently contradictory is that while the Applicant has taken the plea of having suffered practical immobilisation on account of ailments which led to his inability in the timely rectification of the defects, the Applicant could overcome the health incapacitation to undertake travel to United Kingdom at a proximate time.
Even the other explanations relating to obligations arising out of cancer treatment of the Applicant’s sister-in-law’s mother, besides attending of rituals following demise of the Applicant’s mother and personal inconvenience faced by the Counsel of the Applicant are accepted, the Applicant has not indicated the exact period of delay caused by these factors in preventing timely curing of the defects. The Applicant has also failed to disclose the specific dates on which the alleged legible copies were procured or the exact period consumed in reconstructing and recompilation of the records. No continuous date-wise chronology has been furnished by the Applicant indicating the exact steps undertaken by him to cure the defects after the same were notified by the Registry on 01.08.2025. We are conscious of the settled legal position that while considering applications seeking condonation of delay in refiling, a liberal approach may be adopted but such a liberal approach cannot be extended in a routine or mechanical manner especially in proceedings arising under the IBC which contemplates time-bound adjudication as one its primary objective. The Applicant seeking condonation of delay is required to furnish sufficient and satisfactory explanation demonstrating that the delay occurred due to circumstances genuinely beyond his control. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the Applicant lacks cogency and credibility and fails to satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay of 140 days in refiling the Appeal or establish that there prevailed unavoidable or exceptional circumstance beyond their control which genuinely prevented the timely curing of the defects pointed out by the Registry. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves that sufficient and satisfactory explanation has been furnished explaining the entire period of delay.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has not been made out warranting condonation of 140 days’ delay in refiling of the Appeal. I.A. No. 318 of 2026 is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal also stands rejected. No costs.