Belated liquidation claims need a credible exceptional explanation; short procedural delays may be condoned, but stale claims remain rejected.

Short procedural delays in refiling the appeal and in filing the appeal were condoned because the explanations given were accepted and the appeal was within the statutory outer limit. However, a 953-day delay in filing the claim before the liquidator was not condoned because it was far beyond the liquidation timeline and the explanation was vague and unsupported by exceptional circumstances. The claim was therefore rightly rejected, and the appeal failed on merits since the belated claim could not be revived.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal could be condoned. (ii) Whether the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal could be condoned. (iii) Whether the inordinate delay of 953 days in filing the claim before the liquidator could be condoned and the claim entertained.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The delay in refiling was explained as having occurred due to difficulty in obtaining records, preparing the file, and rectifying defects pointed out by the Registry. The explanation was accepted as sufficient for the limited delay in refiling.

Conclusion: The delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal was condoned in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The certified copy was applied for within time and the period spent in obtaining it was excluded. The appeal was also found to have been filed within the outer limit prescribed under the insolvency statute, and the explanation for the short delay was accepted.

Conclusion: The delay of 12 days in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the inordinate delay of 953 days in filing the claim before the liquidator could be condoned and the claim entertained.

Analysis: The claim was filed far beyond the last date fixed in the liquidation process and long after commencement of liquidation. The explanation for the delay was found vague and unsupported by exceptional circumstances. Inordinate delay in lodging the claim was held not to deserve condonation, and the claim was treated as rightly rejected.

Conclusion: The delay of 953 days in filing the claim was not condoned and the rejection of the claim was upheld against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the belated claim before the liquidator could not be revived, although the delay in refiling and in filing the appeal itself was excused.

Ratio Decidendi: A highly belated claim in liquidation proceedings cannot be entertained in the absence of a credible and exceptional explanation for the delay, even where short procedural delays in refiling or filing the appeal are condoned.

---