Condonation of delay in insolvency claims depends on sufficient cause; a statutory body gets no special indulgence.

A belated insolvency claim filed 936 days after liquidation commencement was not condoned because the explanation for the delay was found unacceptable. The tribunal stressed that liquidation is a time-bound process, that the length of delay is less important than the sufficiency of the cause shown, and that a statutory body receives no special indulgence merely by reason of its status. In the absence of sufficient cause, a delayed claim cannot be revived, and the rejection of the late claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 936 days in filing the claim before the liquidator could be condoned and the rejection of the belated claim interfered with.

Analysis: The claim was filed long after the liquidation commencement and after the notified last date for submission of claims. The explanation offered for the prolonged delay was found unacceptable, and the tribunal emphasised that liquidation under the insolvency framework is a time-bound process. The length of delay may not by itself be decisive, but the sufficiency of the explanation is critical. A statutory body is not entitled to any special indulgence merely because of its status, and a belated claim cannot be revived in the absence of sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the rejection of the late claim was upheld against the appellant.

---