Condonation of delay in re-filing requires sufficient cause; unsupported inaction and repeated defects led to dismissal.

Delay in re-filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be supported by sufficient cause, and unsupported explanations for prolonged non-compliance do not justify condonation. The explanation that the authorised signatory was unavailable was found inadequate because a company could act through other authorised persons, and repeated failure to cure the same registry defects over several months showed lack of diligence. The delay of 198 days in re-filing was therefore not condoned, the condonation application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 198 days in re-filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed within the extended limitation period, but the re-filing remained defective for a prolonged period. The explanation that the authorised signatory was unavailable was found to be unsupported and inadequate, particularly because a company can act through other authorised persons. The repeated failure to cure the same registry objections over several months showed lack of seriousness and due diligence. In the context of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, delay must be justified by sufficient cause, and negligence or inaction cannot be excused on equitable considerations.

Conclusion: The delay of 198 days in re-filing was not condoned. The application for condonation was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

---