TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) The Appellant is a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor ("CD") - Envirant Developers Pvt. Ltd. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the CD commenced vide order dated 19.05.2023 of the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.742 of 2023 before this Tribunal challenging the admission order of Company Petition and initiation of CIRP, which Appeal was dismissed on 05.10.2023. (ii) The Appellant also filed an IA No.2002 of 2023 before the Adjudicating Authority, alleging that insolvency petition by Respondent was initiated in alleged collusion with certain individuals, which application although initially dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority, against which an Appeal filed before this Tribunal was also dismissed. But under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1209 of 2023 was heard and this Tribunal set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and granted the liberty to the Appellant to approach the Adjudicating Authority afresh for appropriate relief. In exercise of liberty granted on 19.04.2024, the Appellant filed IA No.3960 of 2024 before the Adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fects were notified on 08.08.2025, with a period of seven days granted for removal of defects, expiring on 15.08.2025. Due to the complexity of matter and bulky set of documents the Applicant, however, re-filed the matter on four occasions being 22.08.2025, 26.09.2025, 22.10.2025 and 15.11.2025. The delay occurred as the Appellant, who resides in the Pune, faced logistical difficulties in procuring legible copies of documents and transmitting the same to the Applicant at Delhi. Owing to the said bona fide circumstances, the delay in re-filing is neither deliberate nor intentional. iii. Further, the delay of 136 days in the present matter has occurred on account of intervening holidays due to Diwali, coupled with Chath Pooja and Sundays, which rendered the offices closed which thereby further contributed to the delay." 8. Respondent No.2 in its reply has pleaded that the Appellant has repeatedly attempted to delay the matter. In Paragraph 8 to 11 and 18 of the reply, Respondent No.2 pleaded following: "8. Since, there is no valid and cogent reason for condoning delay, there is no sufficient cause for condoning such delay. Further, in the strict timeline of IBC t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025, 26.08.2025, 22.09.2025, 25.10.2025 and 15.11.2025. Despite such repeated notifications, it appears that the Appellant was not diligent or interested in removing the defects within a time-bound manner." 9. The Appeal filed by the Appellant was an Appeal challenging order of approval of Resolution Plan. The Appeal although was filed on 06.08.2025 and defects were notified on 11.08.2025, but the Appellant took several months in removing the defects. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Appellant, where the Appellant has sought to explain the date of defect, nature of defects raised and the steps taken by the Appellant in Paragraph-6. 10. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11827 of 2025 in Abhijit Realtors and Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rohit Mehra & Anr., in which case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Resolution Plan having been acted upon and implemented, the Appeal is to be dismissed. It is useful to quote entire order dated 19.03.2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as follows: "We find from the record that the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter justice is always achieved when a lis is decided on a contested hearing rather than on default, we need to take an overall view of the matter. We are of the considered opinion that the words "sufficient cause" in this case ought to have been construed liberally and that interest of justice would be best served if, upon condonation of delay in refiling of the appeal, the NCLAT proceeds with the hearing of the appeal on merits. Ordered accordingly." 12. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law that refiling delay in an Appeal has to be liberally construed. But when we look into the facts of the present case and explanation offered by the Appellant, specially the various litigations, which were undertaken by the Appellant - the Suspended Director of the CD as detailed in the Appeal itself and the fact that Resolution Plan was approved on 25.06.2025, which according to Respondent No.2 has been implemented on 02.07.2025, filing of the Appeal on 06.08.2025 was subsequent to the implementation of the Plan and apart from refiling delay, the Appeal was filed beyond 30 days with delay of 12 days. When the Appellant has filed the Appeal challenging the approval of the Resolu....