Rakshit Ashwinbhai Patel & Ors. vs Vinod Tarachand Agrawal RP of Jay Formulation Ltd.

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present application I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 is an application filed by the Applicant praying for condonation of 108 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 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 Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the though the refiling delay was for 108 days, this delay was caused by genuine and bonafide reasons and was not intentional or deliberate. It was submitted that time was consumed since the Advocate on Record (“AOR” in short) and his clerical staff were not co-located thereby requiring time in coordination. Admitting that the Registry of NCLAT has raised defects in the month of May, 2025, this could not be attended since the AOR was travelling abroad in view of the court vacations in Ahmedabad during that month. Thereafter, as the NCLAT Registry was closed in the month of June, this also came in the way of curing the defects on time. Further, since the wife of the Applicant was suffering from medical hardships, that was yet another factor causing the delay. However, thereafter the defects were cured on 13.08.2025 and the case refiled before this Registry. When defects were pointed out again by the Registry on 14.08.2025, the same was rectified and matter refiled on 27.08.2025. The Registry had again raised defects on 01.09.2025 which was promptly redressed and refiled on 19.09.2025. It was further submitted that no further defects were raised and the NCLAT Registry had sent an e-mail dated 07.10.2025 in which it was clearly mentioned that the Company Appeal Petition had been marked as defect free. This clearly demonstrates that the Applicant had always been diligent in correcting the defects raised by the Registry within a reasonable time. Elaborating the reasons for delay further, it was stated that the time taken in the curing of defects in the present matter was occasioned by the fact that the Registry had directed the Applicant to type out more than 3000 pages of invoices which formed part of the records before the Adjudicating Authority. It was mentioned that this fact was also adverted to in their affidavit for refiling delay condonation placed before this Tribunal.

Per contra, it is the contention of the Respondent that the contention of the Applicant that the appeal is defect free is incorrect and that it is still listed with defects. It was also emphasised that the delay of 108 days was not only unduly long but the reasons given for delay did not justify this protracted delay. It was further pointed out that in a similar matter of seeking condonation of 104 days delay in refiling where similar grounds for delay was given, the delay condonation was not permitted by this Tribunal in Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs Ritu Rastogi, RP and Ors. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 2131 of 2024. It was further added that since IBC framework requires time-bound closure, this appeal which has been filed without sound reasons, the same may not be entertained.

We have heard both parties and seen the material on record carefully.

We have noticed the grounds which have been cited by the Applicant to explain the reasons for delay in refiling thereafter. We notice that the Appeal Petition had been filed within the statutorily permissible period but there has been delay of 108 days in refiling thereafter. The period of delay in refiling is reasonably long and hence it is necessary for us to assess the weight of the explanations offered to justify the delay-span. It is seen from the sequence of refiling steps as placed at page 3 of the Affidavit of the Applicant that the delay occurred in the initial period after filing of the Petition from end of May to end of August. The reasons put forth were that the AOR was out of the country during May 2025 on account of vacations in Ahmedabad and thereafter due to vacations in June 2025 in the NCLAT Registry. Further, some more time was taken because of ill health of the wife of the Applicant which has been supported by medical reports which are placed at Annexure-A in the IA No. 5930 of 2025. It was also brought to our notice that the NCLAT Registry had directed the Applicant to provide typed transcripts of voluminous documents crossing more than 3000 pages. This has been highlighted at para 8 of the refiling delay condonation application which is as reproduced below:

It is well settled that refiling delay condonation has to be more liberally considered as compared to delay condonation and therefore as long as plausible and practical explanation is offered to explain the delay the same needs to be given due consideration so that the cause of substantial justice is well served. The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not only the length of delay but sufficiency and satisfactory cause given to justify the explanation. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the first two months and a bit more was consumed by the absence of the legal counsel and court vacations which lapse or mis-steps cannot be attributed to be lapse on the part of the litigant. Thereafter, a little more than a month’s delay had been caused for medical reasons which we accept without any reservation. Thereafter, we find that the Applicant has been diligently curing the defects as and when pointed out by the Registry including the stupendous task of typing out more than 3000 pages. The e-mail sent by the Registry also shows that the Appeal Petition had been made defect free on 07.10.2025. When the Registry has itself accepted the petition as defect free, we find no reasons to infer otherwise.

Given the circumstances explained in the present case, we are of the considered view that the explanation offered constitutes sufficient cause to justify the refiling delay and therefore in the interest of furthering the cause of substantial justice, it would be prudent that the matter is decided on a contested hearing. While taking a liberal view condoning the refiling delay, we would like subject to the Applicant paying a sum of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund within a period of two weeks from the date of the passing of this order. Accordingly, the IA stands disposed of and the Company Appeal Petition No. 1534 of 2025 is listed for 26.02.2026.