Condonation of short delay upheld where medical evidence supported the explanation and no perversity was shown.

Condonation of a 36-day delay in filing a company petition was upheld because medical documents supported the pleaded ailment, the delay was not inordinate, and the power to condone was exercised pragmatically to advance adjudication on merits. The appellate objection that no opportunity was given to file a rejoinder did not undermine the material relied on by the Tribunal. The challenge failed because no clear perversity or legal error was shown in the condonation order. The objection to maintainability was kept open for decision in the main proceedings and did not affect the delay order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order condoning 36 days' delay in filing the company petition under the Companies Act, 2013 called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The delay was condoned on the basis of medical documents supporting the pleaded ailment, and the appellate challenge that no opportunity was given to file a rejoinder did not dislodge the material considered by the Tribunal. The period of delay was not inordinate, and the power of condonation was treated as a discretionary one to advance adjudication on merits rather than defeat the proceeding on technical grounds. The objection regarding maintainability was kept open for consideration in the main proceedings and did not affect the order on delay.

Conclusion: The condonation order did not warrant interference, and the appeal was rightly dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to condonation of delay failed, while the question of maintainability of the company petition remained open before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of a short delay may be sustained on a pragmatic and discretionary assessment of supporting material, and an appellate court will not interfere absent clear perversity or legal error.

---