TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs are required to be passed on the same. 2) The other two applications, which would be a subject matter of concern, are application for Condonation of Delay in refiling, being IA No. 353/2025, which has been preferred in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 131/2025, where the Appellant has sought the condonation of 210 days of delay, which has chanced in refiling the Appeal. 3) In the other connected Company Appeal being, CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 133/2025, there happens to be an application seeking condonation of delay, in refiling the Appeal being, IA No. 360/2025, where the Appellant has sought the condonation of 213 days of delay. 4) Before dealing with the applications seeking condonation of delay in refiling of the respective Company Appeals, it will be apt to narrate, the precise facts, which are being referred to therein. In the CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 131/2025, the challenge is given by the Appellant is to the Impugned Order dated 18.06.2024, as it was passed in IA(IBC)No. 1225/2024, as preferred in the Company Petition IB No. 296/7/HDB/2022. By virtue of the aforesaid application, the Appellant had sought to raise certain additional grounds, in a pending application IA No. 765/2024, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d some defects which were informed to the Appellant vide the email dated 22.07.2024 at the email [email protected]. b) the above defects were to be removed within seven days from the receipt of the above- mentioned email, the date thereon expired on 28.07.2024 That, there is a delay of 210 days in refiling the present matter as the present matter is being refiled on 23.02.2025 c) It is respectfully submitted that the delay in refiling the present matter occurred due to the fact that certain documents, which were essential for adjudication, were illegible. Consequently, steps to obtain legible copies of these documents caused inadvertent delay." (iii) IA No. 360/2025: BASIS ON WHICH THE INTERIM ORDER ARE PRAYED FOR: a) It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed the instant Company Appeal on 18.07.2024 through E-Filing with vide E Filing Nos. 9805130/01531/2024, 9805130/01532/2024 and 9805130/01533/2024, However, the Physical Copy of the said Appeal was not filed within the appropriate time due to the fact that the physical copies were misplaced during the transit from Hyderabad to Chennai and further the Appellant's counsel was able to tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Appellant on 22.07.2024 and that the defects were rectified only when the Company Appeal was refiled on 23.02.2025, after 210 days of delay. Similarly, in the connected Company Appeal i.e, CA(AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 133/2025, the Appeal was e-filed on 18.07.2024 and after the intimation of defects made as back as on 19.07.2024, it was refiled only on 23.02.2025 i.e., after a delay of 213 days. 11) In both the applications thus preferred for condonation of delay, infact there happens to be no justifiable grounds in the explanation given for the delay of 210 days and 213 days respectively. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the reason given in the Condoned Delay Application ought to be treated to be sufficient reason for the purposes of condonation of delay and a liberal view has to be adopted, so as to condone the delay, which has chanced in refiling the Appeal and the Appeal itself may be heard on merits. 12) The application for seeking condonation of delay in refiling has been vehemently opposed by the Respondent on the ground that, the reason for the delay as given in the application was that the records of the documents got missing and they were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the appeals contemplated under the I & B Code, where timely disposal of cases is given paramount important. In the instant case, when the knowledge of the defect itself was imparted to the Appellant, more than 200 days prior to the refiling of the Company Appeal, there has been an apparent dereliction on part of the Appellant and that too without there being any sufficient cause given in the application for Condonation of Delay in refiling. The word 'sufficient cause' itself will mean that it would be necessary for the parties availing the benefit of condonation of delay to explain the reasons, which will then provide a latitude to condone delay of an act and to permit to perform an act which has otherwise stands debarred by time. The inference drawn to phrase 'sufficient cause' in Para -13 of the Judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 1150, in the matters of Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti, was that, even while considering the aspect of delay in refiling too, the courts are supposed to do substantial justice not only to the appellant, but also to all the parties and therefore taking a liberal approach for condoning the delay, should not be considered at the cost of the other party to the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condonation of delay under Section 5 may not be strictly applicable when question of condonation of delay in refilling/re-presentation arises. A party who is exercising its right to file a statutory appeal in time has not to be shut out on some procedural or technical defects and when defects notified have been removed although with some delay, question to be considered is as to whether there was justifiable cause for delay or not. The time period allowed for removal of the defects is only directory. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co Ltd & Ors MANU/SC/1248/2017 (2017) 16 SCC 143" came to consider the proviso to Section 7(5), 9(5) and 10(4) of the Code which prescribed 7 days period for removal of defects in application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Appellate Tribunal has held that 7 days period is mandatory and rejected the application for non-compliance. Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and held that the period of 7 days cannot be held to be mandatory rather it is directory. Following was laid down in Paras 24 and 25 : "24. Further, we are of the view that the judgments cited by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the Appellant is permitted to be cured and in event the defects are not cured, the Appeal can be refused to be registered. But when defects are cured and the Appeal is registered, the date of refiling of the Appeal after curing the defects, cannot be treated to be the fresh date of filing of the Appeal for computation of limitation. In the present case, the Appeal having been e-filed on 25.09.2023. i.e. within 30 days from passing of the impugned order dated 28.08.2023. the Appeal cannot be held to be barred by time and the submission advanced by Shri Sanjeev Sen, the Appeal when it was refiled after curing the defects, i.e., 16.01.2024, may be treated as date of filing, cannot be accepted. The date of refiling and date of filing are two different clear from statutory scheme." 18) The computation of limitation in refiling has had to be determined on the touch stone of facts and circumstances of each individual case as it engages consideration in a particular appeal and that too, in the context of the reason assigned to satisfy the grounds of sufficiency of cause, which has to be read in corelation to the number of days of delay which is being sought to be condoned, the rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prudence, which could be readily accepted to be genuine and not artificially carved out to seek the benefit of condonation of delay. The Principal Bench in the matters of CA Ramachandra Dallaram Choudhary V. Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. as rendered in IA No. 8709/2024, in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2316/2024, the three member bench in its para - 19 has observed that aspect of delay in refiling of the appeal, has to be construed in the context of the language and reasons intended to be used in the application for seeking condonation of delay and it has not to be casually granted without there being a sufficiency of reasons acceptable to common human prudence, to the proceedings and that the delay in refiling cannot be condoned on frivolous grounds Para-19 of the said judgement is extracted hereunder:- "19 Seen against this backdrop and the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we find that the delay in refiling by nearly four months has been occasioned by rather perfunctory reasons. The Applicant is found to have remained nonchalant and callous about the need to correct the defects pointed out in the Appeal Petition by the NCLAT Registry in a timely manner. In....