Condonation refused for 389-day refiling delay; appeal under Section 9 IBC rejected for lack of sufficient cause

NCLAT considered an application seeking condonation of 389 days' delay in refiling an appeal against dismissal of a Section 9 IBC application. The appellant only asserted that the delay was unintentional and due to reasons beyond its control, without furnishing specific or sufficient cause. NCLAT held that under the time-bound framework of IBC, delay in refiling can be condoned only on demonstrating reasonable, justifiable, and uncontrollable circumstances, which were absent here. Finding an unduly long and unexplained delay, NCLAT dismissed the condonation application and consequently rejected the appeal.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the inordinate delay of approximately 389 days in refiling the appeal, after defects were notified by the Registry, could be condoned under the applicable procedural rules.

1.2 What constitutes "sufficient cause" or a reasonable and justifiable explanation for condonation of delay in refiling an appeal before the Tribunal.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of inordinate delay in refiling the appeal

Legal framework:

2.1 The Tribunal referred to Rules 26 and 14 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. Rule 26(2)-(4) prescribes that if, on scrutiny, an appeal is found defective, it shall be returned for compliance, and if defects are not cured within seven days, the matter is placed before the Registrar, who may pass appropriate orders, including declining to register the appeal. Rule 14 empowers the Tribunal to exempt compliance with any requirement of the Rules only where sufficient cause is shown, in the interest of justice.

2.2 The Tribunal also noted that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is a self-contained code with a time-bound mechanism and prescribed time limits for filing appeals, beyond which the Appellate Authority has no statutory power to condone delay.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.3 The appeal was e-filed on 09.09.2023; defects were notified on 16.09.2023; and the appeal was refiled only on 16.10.2024, resulting in a delay of 389 days in refiling. Under Rule 26, the defects should have been cured within seven days from notification, which did not occur.

2.4 The Tribunal held that delay in refiling can be condoned only if there is reasonable and justifiable cause and if the reasons cited were beyond the control of the appellant, coupled with due diligence and utmost care in attempting to remove the defects.

2.5 The only plea advanced in the condonation application was that the delay was "unintentional and for reasons beyond control of the appellant." The Tribunal characterised this as no reason or justification at all, as it lacked any particulars, explanation, or material showing circumstances beyond control or diligent efforts to cure the defects.

2.6 On perusal of the application, the Tribunal found that it did not provide "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Rule 14. The duration of delay-more than one year in refiling-was described as unduly long, and in the absence of specific and cogent reasons, the Tribunal found it impermissible to exercise its discretionary power to condone.

2.7 Emphasising the time-bound nature of proceedings under the IBC and the limited statutory power to condone delay, the Tribunal held that such an inordinate delay in refiling, unsupported by substantiated cause, could not be excused.

Conclusions:

2.8 The Tribunal held that no sufficient cause was shown for the 389-day delay in refiling the appeal.

2.9 IA No. 7255 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay in refiling was dismissed.

2.10 Consequently, the memorandum of appeal was also dismissed without examination of the merits of the underlying challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

---