Dhiren Shantilal Shah Monitoring ... vs Neev Infrastructure Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1401 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal on a showing of sufficient cause, but a delay in refiling an appeal must be satisfactorily explained, and the threshold for condoning refiling delay is less strict than for filing delay; however, an explanation that the appellant was waiting for other related litigation to conclude, without more, is not a satisfactory explanation for an unexplained delay of 103 days in curing defects in refiling, and the party that has filed an appeal is under a duty to be vigilant and take steps to cure such defects within time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1401 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5428, 5469 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Dhiren Shantilal Shah, Monitoring Insolvency ...Appellant(s) Professional on behalf of Monitoring Committee Versus
Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Pratik Pandey, Mr. Shadab S. Jain, Mr. Aniruth Purusotthaman, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Hersh Desai, Mr. Nitin Mishra, Ms. Mitali Gupta, Advocates
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
20.01.2026 I.A. No. 5469 of 2025 : This is an Application praying
for condonation of 15 days delay in filing the Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that time was taken since
the Appellant is member of the Monetary Committee and thereafter meeting
was held to deliberate and discuss the order and the Monetary Committee
was decided to file an Appeal. Meeting was convened and approval was
sought.
3. We find sufficient cause shown in the Application for condonation of
delay which is within condonable period.
4. Delay Condoned.
I.A. No. 5428 of 2025 : This is an Application praying for condonation of
refiling delay of 103 days. Learned Counsel for Applicant has referred to
Paragraph 13 to 16 for explaining the delay in filing the Appeal. Paragraph
13 to 16 of the Application is as follows :-
"13. It is submitted that IA 5533/2024 was fixed for Final hearing at 03.00 pm on 18.08.2028 and the same was Reserved for Order. The order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Hon 'ble Adjudicating Authority has not yet been uploaded.
14. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there was some certainty that the aforesaid litigation would be over as IA 5533/2024 was in its final stages of adjudication by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority.
15. Even though the SRA wants only modification of the order dated 13.08.2024, not want complete withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, the causelist for 18.08.2025 stated that IA 5533 of 2024, at sr.no.37, had been filed for "recall of the order dated the 13.08.2024". Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure A4 is a copy of case details of Interlocutory Application 5533/2024 from the online portal of the NCLT and Annexure AS is a copy of the causelist of Court 4, NCLT Mumbai for 18.08.2025.
16. It is submitted that the Appellant was waiting for the aforesaid litigation to be over so that there would be some clarity about who would be in charge and control of High Ground. It is submitted that the Appellant was waiting for the SRA to take charge of High Ground so that the baton could be handed over to the SRA. "
2. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents submitted that there are
no reasons given in the Application for explaining the inordinate delay of
103 days in refiling the Appeal.
2 of 3
3. Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that threshold with regard to
refiling delay is not that strict as it is with regard to condonation of delay in
filing. There can be no dispute to the preposition submitted by Learned
Counsel for Applicant that threshold for with regard to refiling Appeal is not
that high which is with regard to filing delay, but there has to be satisfactory
explanation in the Application for condonation delay of 103 days.
4. When we look into Paragraph 13 to 16, only reason it is reflecting in
Paragraph 16 is that Appellant was waiting for the aforesaid litigation to be
over so that there will be some clarity about who would be in charge and
control of the high ground. Appellant having filed the Appeal, it was for the
Appellant to be vigilant and take steps for curing the delays. The reason
given in Paragraph 16 of the Application cannot be held for any satisfactory
reason for not curing the defects in refiling and we are of the view that
refiling delay of 103 delay has not been satisfactorily explained hence we are
unable to condone refilling delay of 103 days.
5. As a result, the Application for condonation of refiling delay is rejected
and Memo of Appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
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