Condonation of delay in refiling requires strict proof in insolvency matters; unsupported explanations failed and the appeals were rejected.

Delay in refiling appeals must be shown within tolerable limits and supported by specific, bona fide explanation, especially in insolvency matters where the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code demands speed and time-bound resolution. The Tribunal found that illness of the authorised representative, COVID-19 disruption, and misplaced files were not sufficiently particularised or substantiated, and that the appellant had not shown due diligence despite the availability of alternative authorised representatives and parallel litigation conduct. The delay of 321 days was therefore not condoned, the condonation applications were dismissed, and the appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 321 days in refiling the appeals could be condoned and whether the explanations offered constituted sufficient cause under the governing insolvency and appellate rules.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that while there is no rigid statutory time-limit for refiling, delay in refiling cannot be treated casually and must remain within tolerable limits. In insolvency matters, the need for speed, predictability, and time-bound resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires stricter scrutiny of requests for condonation. The explanations offered for the delay, namely illness of the authorised representative, disruption caused by the third wave of COVID-19, and misplaced files, were found to be unsupported by particulars and insufficiently explained. The Tribunal also noted the absence of due diligence, the availability of alternative authorised representatives, and the appellant's parallel litigation conduct as factors negativing bona fides.

Conclusion: The delay of 321 days in refiling was not condoned, the condonation applications were dismissed, and the appeals were rejected.

---