TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution Process ('CIRP') against the Respondent No.1 - Somerset Estate Private Limited. 2. Before proceeding further in the main Appeal, we go on to decide Interlocutory Application No. 616/2025 (IA No. 616/2025) which is filed by Mr. Sandeep Kasare - Appellant /Applicant, who is the Power of Attorney holder of Ms Anupama Agarwal (Ms Anupama), the Erstwhile Director of Somerset Estate Pvt Ltd (Corporate Debtor). This Application is filed for condonation of delay of 280 days in refiling the present Appeal. 3. It is claimed by the Appellant that the present Appeal was filed on 06.04.2024 by the Appellant herein for and on behalf of Anupama Agarwal, the Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, the registry of this Court has marked defects on 12.04.2024. On 10th May 2024, subsequent to filing of the Appeal, the father in law of Ms Anupama Agarwal suddenly expired and Ms Anupama Agarwal was mentally disturbed with the untimely death of her father-in-law. Even though Ms Anupama Agarwal was the Shareholder of the Company, however, the entire records and other proceedings in regards to the Corporate Debtor were managed by the father-in-law of Ms Anupama Agarwal. She took some t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd further time was taken by counsel to verify the facts and relevant documents. 6. Further, reliance is placed upon order dated 03.02.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Shreenathii Infrastructure Vs Namasthetu Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2153 of 2024 & IA No. 7602 of 2024, wherein this Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in refiling of Appeal of 104 days, inter-alia on the ground being that the documents were stored in Appellant's Company's office in Bhopal. 7. The Appellant claims that the Appeal could not be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation and the Appeal is found to have merits. The Appellant claims that this Tribunal had issued notice to the Respondents on the main Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 154 of 2025 on 04.02.2025 after being satisfied that the Appeal warranted further consideration. But the said order was later recalled vide order dated 16.04.2025 on the ground that the application seeking condonation of delay in refiling had not been considered. But this Appellate Tribunal did not find the Appeal to be devoid of merit for this reason. Appellant places its reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Transport through its General Manager vs BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana through Parivartan and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2530, wherein it has been held that explanation for day-to-day delay is not necessarily to be given. Broadly the reasons for the delay are mentioned and they cannot be disbelieved. Submissions of the Respondent 9. Per contra the Respondent contends that as per Rule 26 (2) of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 ("NCLAT Rules"), seven days are prescribed for refiling of the Appeal from the date when the Registry intimates the defects to the Appellants. In the present case, there is an exorbitant delay of 280 days in refiling the Appeal and neither sufficient nor reasonable cause has been shown by the Appellant that would allow for condonation of the said delay. Appellant in IA No. 616/2025 submitted that the Appeal was filed on 06.04.2024. Subsequently, on 12.04.2024 certain defects were pointed out by the Registry. It is further submitted that on 10.05.2024 the father-in-law of Ms Anupama passed away and it is contended that the father-in-law was managing all records pertaining to the Corporate Debtor and due to his demise, additional time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent that the Appellant has failed to establish any sufficient or justifiable cause for the inordinate delay of 280 days in refiling the Appeal. The explanation offered that Ms Anupama, a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor was unable to provide the relevant documents as the records were managed by her father-in-law is vague, unsubstantiated and lacks any evidentiary support. Such a contention is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted as a valid ground for condonation of delay. Therefore, in view of the foregoing the present Application is liable to be dismissed. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is a time-bound mechanism under the IBC and an inordinate delay of 280 days without any justifiable cause undermines the objective of expeditious resolution and serves only as an impediment to the statutory timelines prescribed under the Code. 11. The captioned Appeal came for hearing before this Tribunal on 04.02.2025, and this Tribunal after considering the merit in the submissions made issued notice on the main Appeal. However, the said order dated 04.02.2025 was later recalled by this Tribunal pursuant to I.A. No. 2148 of 2025, filed by Respondent No.2, on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant in IA No. 616/2025 filed the Appeal on 06.04.2024. Subsequently, on 12.04.2024 certain defects were pointed out by the Registry. We note that on 10.05.2024 the father-in-law of Ms Anupama passed away and as contended since the father-in-law was managing all records pertaining to the Corporate Debtor and due to his demise, additional time was required to retrieve relevant documents which were in his possession. However, we find the Appellant has failed to offer any explanation for the delay of 27 days in refiling, i.e, for the period between 12.04.2024, when the defects were notified on 09.05.2024. Further we don't find any defect sheet on record with IA No. 616/2025 to substantiate or clarify the nature of the defects pointed out by the Registry. Furthermore, Appellant has not explained which defects required the assistance of Ms Anupama or her father-in-law. When the Appeal was listed for the second time on 04.02.2025, this Appellate Tribunal issued notice without condoning the delay, as IA No. 616/2025 was never placed before us by the Appellant. It appears that Application for condonation of the delay could not be considered and was taken up when the Respondent raised....