2026 (3) TMI 308 - AT - IBC

Condonation of delay requires a reasonable, documented explanation; absent diligence, refiling applications were rejected and appeals dismissed.

Applications seeking condonation of delay in refiling company appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were examined on the legal principle that ... Condonation of delay in refiling of Appeal - inordinate delay - reasonable explanation - lack of diligence disentitles applicant to condonation - delay vitiating time-bound CIRP mandate. Condonation of delay in refiling - lack of diligence disentitles applicant to condonation - Application for condonation of 130 day's delay in refiling - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal treated the present application on the same premises as its earlier decision in connected appeals and the Principal Bench in the matters of Adisri Commercial Private Limited versus Reserve Bank of India [2022 (12) TMI 917 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI], applied the principle that inordinate delay in refiling must be reasonably explained. The appellant's new contention that records went missing and certain documents were illegible was considered but found insufficient. The appeal had been e filed and the appellant's prolonged efforts to trace records and cure defects demonstrated lack of diligence. The supporting affidavit was held to be evasive and failed to particularise efforts taken to retrieve files or to establish why legible copies could not have been procured earlier. The Tribunal also noted that condoning lengthy unexplained delay would undermine the time bound mandate of CIRP and relied on the cited authorities emphasising that condonation is not to be granted routinely without testing the reasonableness of the delay. The application for condonation of 130 day's delay is rejected and the appeal is dismissed. Condonation of delay in refiling - inordinate delay requires reasonable explanation - delay vitiating time-bound CIRP mandate - Application for condonation of 209 day's delay in refiling the appeal - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as in the connected earlier appeals and the authorities of the Principal Bench: an inordinate delay in refiling must be satisfactorily explained. The appellant's additional plea about missing records and illegible documents was found to be inadequately supported; the affidavit did not disclose particulars of the alleged loss or steps taken to obtain copies. The Tribunal observed that waiting for recovery of files and curing defects over a protracted period evidenced want of diligence. It also recognised the public interest in preserving the time bound nature of CIRP proceedings and accepted the authorities cited to refuse routine condonation of long delays. The application for condonation of 209 day's delay is rejected and the appeal is dismissed. Final Conclusion: Both applications for condonation of delay in refiling are rejected on the ground that the delays were inordinate and not reasonably explained, the additional grounds advanced were inadequately substantiated and showed lack of diligence, and consequently both appeals are dismissed. Issues: Whether the delay in refiling the company appeals may be condoned and, consequentially, whether the appeals filed after the delay should be permitted to proceed.Analysis: The appeals arise under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and involve applications for condonation of delay in refiling. The Tribunal applied the precedent and principles that delay in refiling must be reasonably explained and not condoned routinely; explanations alleging misplaced records and illegible documents were examined for diligence and documentary particularity. The affidavit supporting the condonation pleas was found evasive and lacking necessary particulars about efforts to trace files and to procure legible documents. The appellant had e-filed but then waited an extended period to cure defects, demonstrating lack of diligence. The reasoning of the Tribunal's earlier decision dated 28.04.2025 and the Principal Bench authority requiring a reasonable, satisfactory explanation for inordinate refiling delays were applied to the present applications.Conclusion: The applications for condonation of delay in refiling (IA No. 296/2025 and IA No. 299/2025) are rejected and, consequently, the corresponding Company Appeals are dismissed.