J C Flower Asset Reconstruction Private ... vs Sanjay Vyas & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: J C Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., ...Appellants Acting in Its Capacity as Trustee of JCF Yes Trust 2022-23/18 Versus Sanjay Vyas & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Swastik Verma, Mr. V. Vineeth Reddy and Adv. Bendi Raviteja, Advocates.

For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present application IA No. 6774 of 2025 is an application praying for

condonation of 455 days delay in refiling of the Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.

1748 of 2025.

2. The Applicant in the IA No. 6774 of 2025 has submitted that impugned

order was passed on 05.04.2024 following which the appeal had been filed

under Section 61 of the IBC on 14.05.2024 which was within the condonable

period of delay. It was further submitted that objection was raised thereafter

by NCLAT Registry on 11.01.2025 on grounds of unclear copies of documents

having been uploaded as annexure with the appeal. The said objections were

cleared and legible copies were submitted on 20.05.2025. The Applicant has explained the time taken in curing the said defects in the refiling delay

condonation application as reproduced below:-

"4. That the Appellant is a business entity, the authorized representative being a bread earner of the family had to rush for the prior business commitments. That since the authorized representative was travelling out of station for business commitments and work, the counsel for the Appellant was unable to tap upon the Appellant for further progress of the above-captioned matter. Thus resulting to which summed up to the delay in corroborating the documents information and refiling.

5. Moreover. it is being stated that since the documents were voluminous and scattered in nature. the Appellant took time to chunk out the information and the documents, which could be corroborated later at the time of the refiling of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. But despite that. the Appellant and its counsel had made all the efforts so as to timely refile and satisfy the conscious of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal."

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 06.01.2026 before this Tribunal,

the Applicant sought liberty to file an additional affidavit, which liberty was

allowed, to explain the bonafide steps taken by the Applicant to rectify the

defects which were raised by the Registry on multiple occasions. It was pressed

that the delay in curing the defects admittedly took a long time but the delay

was not deliberate and intentional. The refiling delay explanation as brought

out in the additional-affidavit is as reproduced below:-

"5. It is submitted that on 29.05.2025, certain defects were notified. The same were rectified on the 04.06.2025, and the Appeal along with the Interlocutory Application ("IA") for condonation of delay was refiled.

A copy of the refiling receipts of the Appeal and IA is collectively annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-2.

6. It is submitted that on 18 July 2024, further defects were notified and were duly cured on 24 July 2024 and the Appeal was 2 of 6 I.A. No. 6774 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1748 of 2025 resubmitted. A copy of the refiling receipt dated 24.07.2025 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-3.

7. It is submitted that certain documents were required to be submitted in clear/legible form, and in compliance, the Appellant filed an Application for submitting diminished copies through IA bearing Diary No. 9910105104092024 on 14 September 2024 and defects were issued on 25.09.2024 A copy of the filing receipt is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-4.

8. It is submitted that despite the above filings and refiling, the three Diary Numbers 9910110056032024, 9910110056042024 and 9910105104092024 are presently not visible on the refiling portal, and therefore no further steps can taken.

9. It is submitted that on 10 September 2024 defects were notified in respect of IA bearing Diary No. 9910110102062024, which is filed for the purpose of condonation of delay in refiling. However, the defect description was not reflected in the defect sheet, and therefore the Counsel could not rectify the defects.

10. It is submitted that on 11 September 2024 defects relating to computation of delay were notified in IA bearing Diary No. 9910110102072024. The root cause for the defect is the computation of delay, that the delay in days is not computed properly.

11. It is submitted that on 03 January 2025 similar defects relating to computation of delay were notified in IA bearing Diary No. 9910110102222024, which was filed on 10th September 2024 and the issue with delay computation has not been satisfactorily resolved despite previous attempts.

12. It is submitted that on 20 May 2025 the Appellant filed IA bearing Diary No. 9910110045722025 addressing the notified defects. Subsequently defects were raised on 21 May 2025 to rectify the defects on Correct Computation of delay of days was arised.

13. It is submitted that on 23 May 2025 another IA bearing Diary No. 9910110046902025 was filed in continuation of the rectification process. Subsequently defects notified on 09.09.2025 again regarding the adjusting the delay of days. It is submitted that all the defect sheets are cumulatively attached herewith along with additional affidavit as Annexure-5."

3 of 6 I.A. No. 6774 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1748 of 2025

4. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned

Counsel for the Applicant and also seen the records carefully.

5. The Applicant has submitted that the refiling delay was caused since the

Appellant and the counsel were not co-located and also because the Registry

had not described the defects appropriately in the defect sheet besides their

being divergence of opinion on the computation of period of delay in refiling. It

was also pressed that the defects were being cured within 7 days of their being

pointed out by the Registry until September 2025 and thereafter though there

was some delay on their part it was not deliberate or intentional and therefore

the delay deserves to be liberally viewed and condoned so as to advance the

cause of substantial justice. In support of their contention, reliance was placed

on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M

Krishnamurthy 1998 7 SCC 123 wherein it was held that condonation of

delay is a matter of discretion of the court and that length of delay did not

matter and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion for delay

condonation.

6. Coming to our analysis, at the very outset, we would like to observe that

we have no quarrel with the well settled proposition that refiling delay is not

subject to rigorous scrutiny. Nevertheless, the need to strike a balance between

furthering the ends of justice for a litigant and meeting the objective of

timeliness of insolvency resolution framework as embedded in the preamble of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot be lost sight of.

7. The IBC is a special and self-contained enactment which was enacted to

streamline the bankruptcy proceedings so as to create a climate of expeditious 4 of 6 I.A. No. 6774 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1748 of 2025 and time-bound closure of insolvency resolution proceedings. In the present

case, there is a clear delay of 455 days, and that being so, we need to find out

whether the cause for not refiling the appeal on time was reasonable and

justifiable and whether the delay was unavoidable and beyond the control of

the Applicant.

8. When we look at the contents of the additional affidavit and also bear in

mind the oral submissions made, we find that after the initial measures taken

by the Applicant to cure the defects pointed out each time within a reasonable

time until September 2025, there has been incomprehensible slackness

thereafter to remedy the defects pointed out by the Registry. And when we look

at the nature of defects which needed redressal, it was basically related to

computing the number of days of delay in refiling of the appeal. By all stretch

of reasoning, this arithmetical computation of delay was a very trivial matter

shorn of complexities which could have been cured easily had the Applicant

demonstrated due diligence. However, the explanation which was offered orally

during the hearing was that the delay was principally caused because the

Applicant, their counsel, and the Registry were not co-located which

explanation fails to inspire our confidence. Allowing condonation of delay of a

magnitude of 455 days for such light-weighted, feeble and frivolous reasons

fails to satisfy us persuasively. Keeping in view that time is of essence in CIRP

proceedings, we are of the considered view that the Applicant cannot be shown

any indulgence by condonation of the protracted refiling delay of 455 days.

5 of 6 I.A. No. 6774 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1748 of 2025

9. Given this background, we do not find any merit in this application

seeking condonation of 455 days delay in refiling the appeal. The refiling delay

application is rejected. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal is also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Place: New Delhi Date: 14.01.2026 Harleen/Abdul

6 of 6 I.A. No. 6774 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1748 of 2025