TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in IA No. 1527 of 2025 justifying the refiling delay which is as extracted below : - " 3. That a delay of 125 days has been occasioned in the refiling of the captioned appeal of the Appellants since the original date of defects being notified to the Applicants. 4. That on 17.10.2024, the Applicants had filed their Appeal and that the Registry had marked certain defects only on 23.10.2024 after which the matter was refiled within the specified period of one week on 29.10.2024. 5. That the matter was sought to be scrutinised by the Registry, however, defects were only marked on 16.11.2024 due to some technical issue whereafter the matter is being refiled as directed by the officials after clearing the defects. 6. That delay has been occasioned on account of correction of the defects marked by the Registry and owing to a technical issue resulting in the delay in marking of defects despite the efforts of the Counsel. Further, that grave prejudice would be caused to the Appellants herein if the present Appeal is not allowed and that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents in doing so. " 4. When the matter was heard on 25.04.2025, on the request of the Applicant, libert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellants, on a few occasions, the subsequent defect sheets shared by the Registry continued to reflect older defects as marked by the Registry which is contrary to the actual position of the matter. This particular issue is evident from the last defect sheet that had been notified by the Registry dated 04.03.2025 wherein it has been particularly mentioned "Defect No. 8 not cured". This indicates that all other defects had duly been cured by the counsel for the Appellants and it was only one defect that needed to be cured which was also cleared on the same day. However, this was not done at any stage prior to this which has resulted in confusion and needless delay in clearing of the matter. 10. It is also relevant to note that in the intervening period during which the Appeal was defective, the drafting counsel was also under personal difficulty owing to ill health, hospitalisation, and subsequent passing away of his grandmother and had to intermittently travel or take leave for the said reason " 5. Reply has been filed by Respondent No.1/ Resolution Professional ('RP' in short) and Respondent No.5- Unity Small Finance Bank Limited to the refiling delay application filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her hand, the Applicant herein has failed to show that there was no negligence or inaction on their part. Had the Applicant been more careful and adequately vigilant, the Registry would not have been compelled to point out identical deficiencies/discrepancies over and over again. Thus, the explanations provided not only lack substance but also indicate negligence and a casual approach on the part of the Applicant in the discharge of their legal obligations. It was vehemently contended that allowing the refiling delay in the present case would undermine the integrity of judicial process. 8. We have perused the defect sheets which have been placed at Annexure-II by the Applicant in their rejoinder reply at pages 14-18. When we peruse the defect sheets, we find that on each of the dates on which scrutiny was undertaken by the NCLAT Registry, the defects noticed by the Registry were intimated on the very same date to the Applicant and seven days' time period was allowed each time to correct the defects. Most of the defects pointed out are clerical and routine in nature such as illegible/dim copies, incorrect indexation, non- pagination, non-filing of caveat clearance, non-filing of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, the only reasoning provided to explain the delay is the fact that the father of the counsel handling the matter fell ill in September and suffered a brain stroke on 29.09.2024. However, the Appellant has failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for not taking any steps from 11.07.2024 all the way till 31.08.2024. 16. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 30.04.2024. The Appeal was e-filed on 13.06.2024 which was well within period of 45 days including condonation of delay. However, when the defects were notified by the NCLAT registry on 04.07.2024, the Appeal was finally refiled on 23.10.2024 after rectification of defects, with a delay of 104 days. From the explanation we find no reasons except for medical condition with the father of one of the Advocates which occurred sometime on end September. There is total silence from July to end September, 2024. Explanation provided doesn't inspire much confidence. We don't find the reasons explained at paras 3, 4, 5 reproduced earlier to be sufficient to condone the delay in refiling. We find that the Appellant has been negligent in prosecuting the refiling, which in turn indicates lack of diligence of the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timation of defects, the Applicant has taken four months to remedy the defects. One of the principal explanations attributed for the delay by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant was that there were five inter-connected appeals with each of them having multiple applications and hence the defects which had to be corrected were quite a few. The Applicant has also attributed the delay in correcting the defects on account of a sudden barrage of emails and SMSs on the defects in the petition having been received from the NCLAT Registry. It was stated that the clerk of the counsel who was conversant with dealing with such defective petitions was ailing and as he was not able to attend to the defects, it led to the delay. We however find that the ill health of the clerk has not been substantiated by placing on record any proof of his illness which puts a question mark on the plausibility of this excuse. Even if we accept that the clerk was suffering from some ailment, this impediment was not that formidable that it could not have been overcome. The Applicant could have always substituted this clerk with some other team-member. This scapegoat also appears to be a humbug since ample evidence h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Tribunal in Mahendra C. Shah Vs Bank of Baroda in CA(AT)(Ins)No. 2266 of 2024 in which it has been held that if Applicant does not approach the Courts with clean hands by making false averments, the application is liable to be dismissed. Asserting further that delay has been occasioned by procedural negligence on the part of the Applicant, it is contended by the Respondents that the delay does not deserve any leniency. Reliance has been placed on a catena of judgment of this Tribunal, which have already been referred to in the preceding paragraphs, to contend that if any party fails to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, then the delay may not be condoned. 11. Per contra, the Applicant has contended that the delay in refiling was not intentional since the Applicant and his Counsel had taken all possible efforts in serious earnestness to cure the defects and therefore in the interest of justice, the refiling delay condonation may be allowed. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in V.R. Ashok Rao & Ors. Vs TDT Copper Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 780 of 2022 wherein it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rutiny for the listing before this court. 7. Since the applicant has already availed the remedy of appeal for pursuing Intervention Application No. 5 of 2024 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.09.2024 on the ground that it has become infractuous, therefore, the present application, in our considered opinion, is not maintainable as the appellant cannot pursue two remedies at the same time. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of this application to pursue his appeal. Dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant is at liberty to pursue his appeal alleged to have been filed against the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in Application No. 5 of 2024." 13. Having noticed the sequence of events leading to the filing of this Company Appeal before this Bench, we also take notice that it is an undisputed fact that the Applicant had filed the appeal on 17.10.2024 on which the Registry notified the defects on 23.10.2024. The Applicant thereafter refiled their application on 29.10.2024 which fell within a period of seven days stipulated under NCLAT Rules for curing the defects. There has been a cumulative delay t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eds to be construed liberally. Even though no supportive medical evidence has been given to substantiate the illness/hospitalization of the deceased grand-mother, we fully sympathise with this sad turn of events and unhesitatingly accept that delay caused on this ground must be viewed leniently and condoned. 17. Another ground cited is that the drafting counsel had to undertake travel to other cities during this period for handling other litigative proceedings. However, we do not find any cogent basis to condone the delay on this ground that the counsel of the Applicant was engaged in the drafting and filing of other matters and therefore could not attend to removing the defects in the present application leading to delay in filing the appeal. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that when the matter was already delayed on account of the medical grounds stated above, the drafting counsel ought to have devoted priority attention to curing defects of the present appeal. It is the contention of the Respondents that the ground of personal difficulty of one counsel being the cause for delay in refiling is devoid of substance in this case since the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Applicant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to adduce any proof to show that it had approached the Registry seeking their clarification on this point. Instead the repeated need to correct and refile the Appeal reflects gross negligence and lack of diligence. Further the excuse taken that the Registry official had created a misunderstanding over the validity of the Power of Attorney having initially accepted and later objected to the same is also frivolous and vague. In any case it is unjustified that two months' time was consumed in submitting the correct documents relating to the Power of Attorney as this is a simple exercise which would not entail requiring so much time to remedy this defect. Even the consequential renumbering of files and revision of the bookmarks etc. are not such a complex or intensive exercise which could have consumed so much time. To file a wrong and defective document not complying to procedural niceties and then expecting leniency to be shown by the Registry is not a tenable argument. Litigants cannot take advantage of their own negligence and expect the Registry not to point out defects. Had the Applicant been more vigilant about protecting their interest, they would have shown greater alertnes....