TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation filed by the Applicant praying for condonation of 205 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1700 of 2024. 2. Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.10.2024 and the Respondent was allowed two weeks' time to file their reply and Applicant was allowed two weeks further time to file their rejoinder. 3. Assertion was made by the Applicant that the refiling delay was caused by genuine and bonafide reasons as time was taken in obtaining the signature of the authorized signatory/government representative for signing of documents; physical file of the appeal having been misplaced by the NCLAT Registry; inability of the clerk to comprehend the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal, New Delhi IB-321/ND/2021 was filed by the Appellant on 27.09.2023. 4. That the registry after scrutiny of the appeal marked the defects and intimated the Appellant on 05.10.2023 to remove the defect within 7 days from receiving notification. 5. That immediately after the receipt of the said notification the Appellant started to remove the defects raised by the Registry however, the said defects include but were not limited to signature and attestation from the appellant however, the Appellant could not refile the appeal in the stipulated time and there was a delay of 22 days from the stipulated time as Appellant is a Government department and signature from Authorized Representative took some time. Thereafter, the Appellant refiled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f defects sheets are herein annexed as Annexure A-2(Colly). 12. That on 18.04.2024 and 19.04.2024 the Appellant removed the defect and only the remaining 2 defects were observed on 16.04.2024 by paying fees for 3(Three) IAs and giving an undertaking that page no. 37 to 43 has not been wrongly filed but is a part of the Impugned order. 17. ..... Moreover, the other reason is that the Registry themselves lost/misplaced the physical Appeal file (which has not been found till date) and that is the real reason why the Registry is not able to check the actual defects and just tried to evade their responsibility by raising the same objection again and again." 5. Per contra, it is the contention of the Respondent that the explanation and reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cess. 6. We have heard both parties and seen the material on record. 7. Coming to our analysis, we are clearly in agreement with the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Chandra judgment (supra) that if there is sufficient cause of the delay, the delay can be condoned. It therefore logically follows that the converse principle is equally applicable that if cause shown is insufficient then the delay may not be condoned. In the present facts of case where delay in refiling is indisputably and unduly prolonged for 205 days, it becomes incumbent on the Bench to be satisfied with the cogency and plausibility of the reasons set forth by the Applicant to explain the delay. 8. We have perused the defect sheets which have been placed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... process which is one of the avowed objectives of the IBC. Such a lack-lustre, careless and negligent approach does not meet our countenance. 9. We also notice that the Applicant has further attributed delay on the ground that their appeal petition was misplaced by the NCLAT Registry. However, no supporting documents have been placed on record which show that the physical copy was misplaced or lost by the Registry. No correspondence has been placed on record to show that the Registry was apprised of the misplacement of file by them. Neither have any documents been placed on record to show that the Applicant was seriously pursuing with the Registry for locating the misplaced file and listing of the same. This attempt at deflecting their sho....