Condonation of inordinate delay denied where the explanation was unsupported and the record showed pursuit of other proceedings.

Condonation of an inordinate 1332-day delay in filing a restoration application required a convincing and bona fide explanation for the entire period, and the Tribunal held that this standard was not met. The order dismissing the company petition was not ex parte, as the applicant's advocates were present on the date of dismissal, and the pleaded causes of illness and family difficulties were not accepted because the record showed pursuit of other proceedings during the same period. The application for condonation and revival of the company petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1332 days in filing the restoration application and revival of the company petition.

Analysis: The delay sought to be excused was extremely long, and the applicant was required to furnish a convincing explanation for the entire period. The record showed that the order dismissing the company petition was not passed ex parte, as the applicant's advocates were present on the date of dismissal. The explanation that illness and family difficulties prevented action was not accepted, since the applicant was found to have pursued other proceedings in different fora during the relevant period. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found no satisfactory basis to invoke a liberal approach to condonation.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay, and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of an inordinate delay requires a convincing and bona fide explanation for the entire period of default, and delay will not be excused where the record negates the pleaded cause and the party demonstrates continued pursuit of other proceedings.

---