Condonation of refiling delay fails where explanations are vague and diligence is absent, leading to rejection of the appeal.

Condonation of a 136-day refiling delay requires a specific, credible explanation showing due diligence; vague references to bulky papers, difficulty obtaining legible copies and holidays were held insufficient. The Tribunal noted that defects had been intimated repeatedly, yet the appellant did not cure them promptly or deposit the requisite fees, and the explanation lacked dates or particulars. It also considered that the appeal was filed after approval of the resolution plan and, according to the respondents, after implementation. On that basis, sufficient cause was not established, condonation was refused, and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a refiling delay of 136 days in the appeal and whether, on that basis, the appeal could be entertained.

Analysis: The application was supported by general explanations relating to bulky documents, logistical difficulty in procuring legible copies, and intervening holidays. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been filed after the resolution plan had already been approved and, according to the respondents, implemented. It further found that defects had been intimated on multiple occasions, yet the appellant did not act with promptitude in curing them or in depositing the requisite fees. The explanation for the long delay was held to be vague and unsupported by specific dates or particulars, and the appellant's conduct showed a lack of diligence in pursuing the matter.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not established, so condonation of the refiling delay was refused and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of refiling delay requires a specific and credible explanation showing diligence, and vague or unsupported reasons will not suffice where the party has repeatedly failed to cure defects promptly.

---