Condonation of delay in refiling requires a credible date-wise explanation; unsupported excuses will not justify leniency.

A liberal approach may be applied to delay in refiling, but only where the applicant gives a satisfactory, credible and date-wise explanation for the entire period. Explanations based on illness, family exigencies, alleged foreign travel and difficulty in procuring legible records were found unsupported by convincing material and lacking a continuous chronology of diligent steps to cure defects. In insolvency proceedings, procedural leniency cannot be applied mechanically when the delay remains inadequately explained, so sufficient cause was not established and the delay in refiling was not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone 140 days' delay in refiling the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal reiterated that delay in refiling may be condoned on a liberal approach, but only when the applicant furnishes a satisfactory, credible and date-wise explanation for the entire period of delay. The explanations based on illness, family exigencies, alleged foreign travel and difficulties in procuring legible records were found unsupported by convincing material and lacked a continuous chronology showing diligent steps taken to cure the defects. The medical records did not show complete incapacitation, and the claimed overseas travel sat uneasily with the plea of inability to act. In proceedings under the insolvency framework, procedural leniency cannot be applied mechanically where the delay remains inadequately explained.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not made out, and the delay in refiling was not condoned.

---