Komal Rakshit Patel vs Vinod Tarachand Agrawal Rp Of Jay ...

Komal Rakshit Patel ...Appellant(s) Versus Vinod Tarachand Agrawal RP of Jay Formulation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present:

For Applicant : Mr. Arjun Sheth, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Karan Valecha, Advocate for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present application I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 is an application filed by

the Applicant praying for condonation of 105 days delay in refiling of Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025.

2. Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application

by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2025 and the Respondent was allowed

three weeks' time to file their reply.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the refiling delay was

caused by genuine reasons on account of time taken in the coordination between

the Advocate on Record ("AOR" in short) who was located at Ahmedabad while

1 of 4 I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025 the clerk was situated in New Delhi. Time was also consumed as the Counsel

was travelling abroad during May, 2025 which was followed by closure of the

NCLAT Registry due to vacations in June, 2025. Further steps to cure the defects

were impeded on account of medical issues faced both by the Applicant and the

clerk of the AOR which compounded the delay. All these factors were beyond the

control of the Applicant and hence the cumulative delay of 105 days in refiling

the appeal deserves to be condoned.

4. Rebutting the explanation offered by the Applicant substantiating the

refiling delay, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the

grounds taken by the Appellant in seeking condonation of 105 days delay in

refiling of the appeal. It was contended that the Appeal continued to remain in

defects for a long time in the initial stages of filing with the Applicant not

displaying due promptitude and seriousness in making endeavours to cure the

defects and despite getting several opportunities, thereafter the Applicant failed

to refile a defect-free appeal. It was also asserted that the reasons for delay as

highlighted cannot be regarded as sufficient cause for the purpose of

condonation of delay as these are the usual run of the mill excuses resorted to

for seeking condonation of delay in refiling which cannot be permitted.

5. We have heard both sides and perused materials placed on record

carefully.

6. To come to our considered view on the prayer made in the IA No. 5929 of

2025 seeking refiling delay condonation, we have looked at the explanation

offered by the Applicant in the application for the delay in refiling in the refiling

2 of 4 I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025 delay condonation application which is as reproduced below:

"4. That the Advocate on Record ("AOR") of the Appellants in the present matter is from Ahmedabad and the clerk of the AOR is in New Delhi. That time was consumed in coordinating between the AOR of the appellants and its clerk.

5. That when the defect was raised by the Ld. Registry in May, 2025, at that point of time the AOR of the appellants was not in country and was travelling abroad in view of the vacation in the courts in Ahmedabad. Therefore, the email issued by the Ld. Registry was missed.

6. Thereafter, due to vacations in the courts at Delhi, in the month of June, the clerk of the AOR was not available and therefore there were issues in coordination for refiling of the appeal.

7. Further, the readable copies of certain documents could not be procured in a timely manner since the appellant was not keeping well since July, 2025. That the appellant is having cervical issues and is also having problem in walking. Since, the medical condition of the appellant was not getting better, the appellant had approached an orthopaedic in the month of August, 2025, who had advised the appellant for rest of four weeks and for further investigations. Copy of the medical reports of the appellant is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- [A]

8. Further, when the legible/ readable copies of the documents were sent to the clerk of AOR at Delhi, the clerk was not keeping well and due to that further delay was caused in refiling the present appeal."

The Applicant has also filed an additional-affidavit to explain the steps taken by

the Applicant to rectify the defects which we find to be a reiteration of the same

reasons which were set out in the refiling delay condonation application. As such

we do not find any other exceptional or additional reason which has been

elaborated in the additional affidavit.

7. We find that the Applicant has attributed a large part of the delay to the

3 of 4 I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025 time consumed in coordination exercise between the counsel and his clerk on

grounds of not being co-located. This ground of delay does not persuade us

sufficiently enough since lack of geographical proximity cannot be touted to

justify such protracted procedural delays. While the delay caused on account of

medical conditions of the Applicant is acceptable in view of the fact that the same

has been substantiated with medical report placed at Annexure-A of the refiling

delay condonation application, we notice that purported ill health of the clerk of

the AOR has also been trumped up albeit without any supporting medical report.

Seen together we do not find sufficient and cogent grounds having been raised

to explain the delay. We are not inclined to agree with the explanation tendered

by the Applicant and condonation of delay in refiling in the present facts of the

case does not meet our countenance.

8. In view of the above discussions, we do not see any merit in the application

filed for seeking condonation of 105 days delay in refiling the appeal as no

sufficient grounds have been made out for allowing the condonation.

Accordingly, IA No. 5929 of 2025 is rejected. The Memo of Appeal is also rejected.

No costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Place: New Delhi Date: 10.02.2025 Abdul 4 of 4 I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025