Condonation of refiling delay requires a credible explanation, and unexplained defects can defeat relief despite procedural flexibility.

Inordinate delay in refiling company appeals was not condoned because the explanation for the default was vague and unsupported by specifics on when the records were misplaced or recovered. Although Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 permits flexibility in dealing with refiling defects and the distinction between filing limitation and refiling delay was recognised, condonation still required a credible, reasonable explanation showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal found lack of diligence and bona fides, noting that defects remained uncured for over 200 days despite more than one counsel being on record, and dismissed the condonation applications.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay in refiling the company appeals, after defects were notified, could be condoned under Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The delay in refiling was substantial, and the explanation offered was found unsatisfactory because it lacked specifics as to when and how the records were misplaced and retrieved. The Tribunal held that, although refiling delay is procedural and Rule 26 is to be applied with some flexibility, condonation still requires a credible and reasonable explanation showing sufficient cause. The absence of diligence, particularly where more than one counsel was on record and defects remained uncured for over 200 days, indicated lack of bona fides and defeated the plea for condonation. The distinction between limitation for filing an appeal and delay in refiling was recognised, but that distinction did not justify condonation on the facts.

Conclusion: The delay in refiling was not condoned, and the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed.

---