Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Vijaykumar V Iyer Liquidator For M/S. ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1519 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The court's reasoning rests on a single principle: in an appeal arising from insolvency proceedings, where the statutory timelines for completing the process are strict, an explanation for refiling delay that does not amount to a satisfactory cause does not justify condonation of a delay of 511 days, and the refiling delay application is accordingly dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Employees Provident Fund Organization ...Appellant
Versus
Vijaykumar V. Iyer, Liquidator of Bharti Defence and Infrastructure Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Kumar Dey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Smiti Verma, Mr. Pranay Chitale, Mr. Samyak Jain, Advocates for Applicant in 7431 of 2025.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.12.2025: I.A. No.5953 of 2025: This is an application praying for
condonation of 511 days' delay in refiling the appeal. Learned counsel for the
Appellant submits that there is explanation of delay and reason given is that
learned counsel for the Appellant was suffering from health ailments.
Reasons given are in Para 6 and 7 of the application, which are as follows:
"5. That upon receiving the information regarding the defects further time was consumed in the process of informing the same to the office of the appellant and thereafter in communicating the same to the counsel for rectifying the defects in the appeal, approving, and signing of the by the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the Applicant has been suffering from serious health ailments, including a heart condition requiring medical supervision, sternal
Cont'd.../ complications, and pancreatic issues, which rendered him bedridden for a considerable period of time. Owing to such prolonged illness and physical incapacity, the counsel was unable to attend to his professional duties, resulting in the delay in refiling. Hence, refiling could not be completed within the limitation period of 7 days"
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that if delay is not condoned,
it will adversely affect the workmen.
3. Be that as it may. The explanation which has been given in Paras 6
and 7 above, are not any satisfactory explanation for condoning refiling delay
of 511 days. Appeal arising of the insolvency proceeding, there are timelines
for completion of all processes. We, thus, are of the view that refiling delay of
511 days cannot be condoned. Refiling Delay Application is dismissed.
Appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1519 of 2025 2 of 2
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