NCLAT dismisses appeal after 46-day delay citing insufficient cause for condonation of delay

The NCLAT Chennai dismissed an application for condonation of 46-day delay in filing an appeal. The appellant cited consultation with counsel and internal management regarding the impugned order as reasons for delay beyond the prescribed 30-day period plus 15-day extension. The tribunal held that consultation with counsel and internal management were within the appellant's control and did not constitute sufficient cause for delay. The excuse was deemed unbelievable and inadequate, failing to satisfy the requirement for plausible justification needed for condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the sufficiency of cause for seeking condonation of delay.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 15 days. The appellant cited consultation with Counsel and internal management as the reason for the delay. However, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days and the extended period of 15 days. The Appellate Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that only a delay of up to 15 days can be condoned. The Tribunal found the appellant's reason for delay as consultation with Counsel and internal management to be insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Sufficiency of Cause for Condonation:
The appellant's reason for delay was deemed inadequate by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that a plausible excuse or sufficient cause must be presented for condonation of delay. The appellant's claim of being in consultation with Counsel and internal management was considered to be within their control and not a justifiable reason for the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the excuse provided did not meet the standard of a sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.

Separate Judgement by the Judges:
The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal, with no separate judgments issued by the judges. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the appeal itself, stating that the delay was not justifiable and did not warrant interference.

---