2025 (2) TMI 1490 - AT - IBC

Condonation of Delay denied where refiling delay lacked cogent proof; appeal dismissed for failure to establish sufficient cause.

Application concerns condonation of a 170-day refiling delay for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The legal point emphasised is that ... Condonation of delay in refiling - sufficient cause for condonation - diligence in prosecuting the appeal - time bound nature of IBC proceedings - refiling delay distinct from filing delay - HELD THAT:- In this case, the Appellant has taken about 170 days to cure the defects and finally refile the present appeal. The Appellant seeks condonation of delay on several grounds such as advocate’s clerk had misplaced pages of appeal while filing it, personal difficulty in re-filing, engagement in roka ceremony of the advocate in April, 2024 and thereafter preparation of the marriage of the Advocate and thereafter major surgery of his mother in August and thereafter house shifting. These reasons do not inspire much confidence as they appear to be more of bald and casual statements without really justifying the huge delay of 170 days in refiling. The IBC Code provides for a very strict timeline for filing an appeal but the Appellant has not been vigilant in refiling the appeal. The Appellant has provided certain personal reasons but unable to show any 'sufficient cause' for the delay of 170 days. Therefore, we find that justification of delay is unjustified. Thus, we find that the explanation for the delay is unjustified and we conclude that the Appellant has not been vigilant in prosecuting the proceedings. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the condonation of 170 days delay is not allowed. Accordingly, the memo of Appeal is dismissed. Issues: Whether the condonation of 170 days' delay in refiling the appeal should be allowed.Analysis: The appeal under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was sought to be refiled and an application for condonation of delay under Rule 31 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 was filed. The Tribunal examined the explanation offered for the 170-day refiling delay and compared it with the standards applicable to condonation of delay in refiling in the context of the time-sensitive and statutory regime of the Code. Authorities relied upon by the Respondent and the Tribunal emphasise that refiling delays must be justified by reasonable and cogent grounds and that negligence or lack of vigilance in prosecution, inordinate delay, and personal excuses without supporting material will not ordinarily suffice. The Appellant's stated reasons (misplaced pages, counsel's personal events, family medical issues, and house shifting) were found to be unsupported by satisfactory proof and to reflect lack of vigilance in prosecuting the appeal, thereby failing to constitute sufficient cause for condoning the prolonged delay.Conclusion: The application for condonation of the 170 days' delay in refiling is rejected. The memo of appeal is dismissed.