Aypols Polymers Private Limited vs Suvarna Fiber Privae Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 368 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that a delay of 293 days in refiling an appeal cannot be condoned where the only ground advanced is that considerable time was taken to obtain instructions, obtain signed copies of documents, correct pagination repeatedly and cure defects pointed out; such grounds do not constitute sufficient cause, and the memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Aypols Polymers Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Suvarna Fibrotech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Palanikumar, CS. For Respondents:
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
05.03.2024: I.A. No. 1256 of 2024: This is an application filed by the
Appellant praying for condonation of 4 days' delay in filing the appeal.
Sufficient cause has been shown in the application for condonation of 4 days'
delay. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 1256 of 2024 stands
disposed of.
2. I.A. No. 1189 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation
of 293 days' delay in refiling the appeal. The only ground given is at Para 4
of the application that considerable time was taken to obtain instructions, get
signed copy of documents, correct the pagination multiple times and cure the
defects pointed out.
3. The grounds taken in Para 4 of the application are not sufficient
grounds to condone refiling delay of 293 days in refiling the appeal. We are
Cont'd.../ -2-
of the view that no sufficient grounds have been made out to condone such
an inordinate delay of 293 days in refiling the appeal. Refiling Delay
Condonation Application is dismissed. In result, Memo of Appeal is also
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.368 of 2024
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