TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of operational debt and the occurrence of default. The Appellant had sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent on account of unpaid transportation and logistics charges arising from long-standing commercial transactions between the parties. 2. The Appellant submits that the impugned order failed to consider that the operational debt which was duly acknowledged by Respondent through email communications dated 06.12.2018 and pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was processed. No reply was ever given by Respondent to the statutory demand notice dated 07.05.2019 issued under Section 8 of the IBC, and that all invoices had been duly received and acknowledged by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor without any pre-existing dispute. Aggrieved by the rejection of its Section 9 petition despite alleging a clear operational debt of Rs. 10,52,127/- comprising principal amount of Rs. 7,64,192/- and interest of Rs. 2,87,935/-, Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 61 of the Code seeking setting aside of the impugned order and initiation of CIRP against Respondent. 3. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 13 days in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lt. iv. The impugned order was pronounced on 03.02.2025, thereby triggering the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC. As per the statutory scheme, the Appellant was required to file the appeal within 30 days, i.e., on or before 05.03.2025, with a further condonable period of 15 days, extending the outer limit to approximately 20.03.2025. v. The Appellant filed the present appeal on 18.03.2025, i.e., on the 43rd day from the date of the impugned order, which falls within the extended condonable period of 15 days. Along with the appeal, an I.A. No. 6639 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing, attributing the delay to late receipt of the copy of the impugned order from the counsel of the Appellant. vi. However, upon filing, the appeal was found to be defective by the Registry. The defects were notified to the Appellant, requiring rectification before the appeal could be treated as properly instituted. Instead of curing these defects within a reasonable time, the Appellant took an extended period to comply. The Appellant filed I.A. No. 6569 of 2025 seeking condonation of 198 days delay in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been extracted below:- S. No. Date of Defect Report/ Scrutiny Proceeding/ Filing Remarks showing diligence 1. 24.03.2025 Main Appeal First defect sheet issued after initial filing 2. 21.04.2025 Main Appeal Defects pointed out again after curing earlier defects 3. 21.04.2025 I.A. Separate defects for interlocutory application 4. 01.05.2025 I.A. Defects cured and rescrutinised 5. 07.05.2025 Main Appeal Further objections raised 6. 14.05.2025 Main Appeal Registry raised fresh objections 7. 14.05.2025 I.A. Delay-related correction sought 8. 27.05.2025 Main Appeal Defects again reported 9. 08.07.2025 Main Appeal Continued scrutiny after re- filing 10. 18.08.2025 Main Appeal Defects pointed out 11. 18.08.2025 I.A. Corresponding IA defects 12. 29.08.2025 Main Appeal Re-scrutiny post compliance 13. 02.09.2025 Main Appeal Minor defects at re-filing stage 14. 11.09.2025 Main Appeal Residual objections 15. 15.09.2025 I.A. (multiple) Defects in IAs and pagination 16. 20.09.2025 Main Appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay was occasioned due to the volume and nature of objections and the time required to cure technical defects, including compliance with formatting, documentation, and procedural requirements. 13. The counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no intention whatsoever to delay the proceedings, nor has the Appellant derived any benefit from such delay. On the contrary, refusal to condone the delay would cause grave prejudice to the Appellant by depriving it of adjudication on merits, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay is condoned. 14. He further submits that all defects have now been removed to the satisfaction of the Registry, and the appeal stands in order and has already been registered. This itself demonstrates that the Appellant has complied with all procedural requirements and has acted with due diligence. 15. In view of the above, the counsel for the Appellant submits that the delay in re-filing deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, particularly when the matter involves substantial questions requiring adjudication on merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds. He prays for condonatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of law and fails to justify the prolonged inaction. 21. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant has utterly failed to demonstrate any bona fide intention or due diligence in prosecuting the matter. The delay is clearly attributable to gross negligence and inaction, and cannot be condoned on the ground of personal inconvenience. 22. It is submitted that the record clearly reveals persistent negligence on the part of the Appellant in curing defects pointed out by the Registry. The same defects were repeatedly notified and remained uncured over multiple dates, including 24.03.2025, 21.04.2025, 05.05.2025, 15.05.2025, 24.05.2025, 29.08.2025, 02.09.2025, 15.09.2025, and even as late as 16.10.2025. 23. The Respondent submits that such repeated lapses and continued failure to remove defects clearly establish gross negligence and a casual approach towards judicial proceedings. These circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. 24. The Respondent places further reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argued that more than 15 rounds of objections were raised and cleared over time, and therefore the delay was procedural and not intentional. 30. On the other hand, the Respondent has opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay is excessive and not properly explained. It is argued that the reasons given by the Appellant are vague and inconsistent, and that repeated failure to remove defects shows negligence rather than diligence. It is further submitted that mere personal inconvenience or procedural issues cannot be treated as "sufficient cause", especially when the delay is as long as 198 days. 31. We note that the Appellant has ascribed the delay in refiling to personal exigency of the authorised signatory and to the procedural delay in the Registry in the process of clearing the defects. The first cause cited by Appellant for delay relating to the "personal exigency" of the authorized signatory is too general and unsupported by any material. We find the explanation given by the Appellant, that the delay happened because the Authorized Signatory was unavailable, is not at all convincing. The reasons for non-availability of authorised signatory have not bee....