Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ajay Dhawan vs D.S.G. Papers Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal9 April 2025Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal condones a 14-day delay in filing an appeal where the appellant, resident abroad, was without effective communication to give timely instructions, and the respondent filed no reply to that application; a delay of this length on that ground constitutes sufficient cause. Refiling of an appeal after the period permitted for its re-presentation may be condoned only where the applicant gives a proper and sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay; a bare assertion that earlier counsel did not inform the appellant of the refiling delay, unsupported by a convincing account of the intervening period, does not amount to such an explanation, and an unexplained delay of 245 days cannot be condoned. Where the refiling delay is not condoned, the memo of appeal falls with it and the appeal stands rejected.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2257 of 2024&I.A. No. 8479, 8466 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Ajay Dhawan ...Appellant Versus D.S.G. Papers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia and Ms. Mihir Gupta, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mrs. Preeti Kashyap and Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

09.04.2025 : I.A. No. 8479/2024

1. This is an application praying for condonation of 14 days delay in filing

of the appeal.

2. The ground given in the application is that appeal is filed by the

appellant through its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Sanjay Dhawan and it is

submitted that appellant is resident of USA and due to lack of effective

communication, appellant could not get timely instructions for filing of the

appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has not file any reply to the said

delay condonation application.

4. We find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 14 days.

Delay condoned.

I.A. No. 8466/2024

1. This is an application praying for 245 days delay in refiling of the

appeal.

2. Appellant has filed an additional affidavit in support of the refiling delay

application. A reply has been filed by the respondent opposing the

condonation of refiling delay.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in the additional affidavit submits

that appellant came to know that application for condonation of delay being

8479/2024 & 8466/2024 are verbatim and appellant was not informed by

earlier counsel that there is huge delay in refiling.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission submits

that application for refiling delay dated 28.10.2024 has been filed with the

affidavit of same person Mr. Sanjay Dhawan who has filed the appeal and

delay condonation application which is dated 28.10.2024 and submission of

the appellant that both applications i.e., delay condonation application and

refiling delay application are verbatim is incorrect.

5. We have perused the applications and we do not find that they are

verbatim applications.

6. In application for condonation of refiling delay the reasons have been

given in paragraph 3. The refiling delay application has been filed on

28.10.2024, we are of the view that there is no sufficient explanation for

condoning 245 days delay in refiling of the appeal.

7. We do not find any good ground to condone the inordinate delay of 245

days for which there is no proper explanation.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2257 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8479 & 8466 of 2024 2 of 3 Refiling delay application is rejected. Memo of appeal is also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2257 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8479 & 8466 of 2024 3 of 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free