Navinchandra Mangaldas Patel vs Fcg Flameproof Control Gears Private ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Navinchandra Mangaldas Patel ...Appellant

Versus

FCG Flameproof Control Gears Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhary, Ms. Prachi Wazalwar, Ms. Meghna Rao, Mr. Abhishek Bose, Ms. Muskan Khatara, Ms. Shreya Pandey, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Himani Singh, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.08.2026 The present Appeal is filed under Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013, against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the

National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I ("NCLT") in C.P. No. 62 of

2024, whereby the Learned NCLT disposed of the CP No. 62 of 2024 without

allowing reliefs as prayed therein by the Appellant. The Appellant has alleged

multiple grievances arising out of serious procedural irregularities, coupled

with lack of transparency and deviation from the statutory framework under

the Companies Act, 2013, which has prejudiced the Appellant and more

particularly Respondent No.1 - FCG Flameproof Control Gears Pvt. Ltd.

2. Before proceeding further, we note that the impugned order was passed

on 20.05.2025 and the date of e-fling of this Appeal is 17.07.2025. The matter was first taken 23.03.2026 wherein I.A. No. 2114 of 2026 was considered for

condoning delay of 217 days chanced in refiling the Appeal. I.A. No.

2114/2026 notes the following as the reasons of the delay in re-filing:

"That at the time of filing of the Appeal, certain objections were raised by the Registry. However, firstly due to personal health concern of the counsel on record, she was unable to get all the issues/objections cleared even though the counsel sporadically was able to recover in between which was allowing her to be able to appear occasionally before the Hon'ble Tribunal, however due to persisting health concern, time was taken to clear all the defects in the said appeal. Due to these personal health circumstances, the counsel was unable to cure the objections within the stipulated time, thus resulting in a delay in re- filing the above Appeal which was completely unintentional, and secondly, some time was taken in the receipt of the documents from the Appellant.

That the above delay of about 217 days in re-filing the Appeal is unintentional, unavoidable and bonafide and the Appellant would suffer irreparable loss and damage in case the application as prayed for is not allowed."

3. Condonation of re-filing delay was vehemently opposed by the

Respondent No. 3 & 4 and they claimed that the Appellant has not been able

to demonstrate sufficient cause for considering the condonation of delay in

re-filing the appeal. They also contend that by an order dated 23.03.2026

passed by this Appellate Tribunal, the Applicant/Appellant was given an

opportunity to file an affidavit with better particulars explaining the reasons

for the delay in re-filing the appeal, but it has failed to do so.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 2 of 10

4. It is also claimed by the Respondents that, the Applicant/Appellant has

strategically re-filed the appeal only because the Respondent No.3 has filed

an Execution Petition, being Execution Petition No. 2(MB)/2026, before NCLT,

Mumbai, for getting the execution of the order dated 20.05.2025, which has

been impugned by the Appellant in the above appeal. The Respondent claims

that even though the appeal (albeit with defects) was initially filed within the

statutory time-limits, the Applicant/Appellant deliberately did not remove the

objections raised by the Registry in a timely manner with a view to avoid

getting the Appeal listed. Its only when the Respondent No.3 had filed the

Execution Petition, before the NCLT, Mumbai on 10.02.2026 and the same

was for the first time listed on 19.02.2026 the appearance therein was made

on behalf of the Appellant therein on 10.03.2026 and a request for grant of

time to file an affidavit in reply to the execution proceedings, as it was sought

from NCLT Mumbai.

5. The Applicant/Appellant is said to have cleared the defects in the

appeal at a much belated stage. It is also claimed by the Respondent that, the

Applicant/Appellant has attempted to gain an unfair advantage over

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by this delay, which was deliberate and oriented by

mala fide. Respondents also brought to our notice that, between 17.07.2025

(i.e. the date on which the above Appeal was first filed) and 10.03.2026 (i.e.

the date on which the Applicant/Appellant made appearance before NCLT,

Mumbai in the abovementioned Execution Petition), the Appellant had

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 3 of 10 avoided to make any compliance with the Order dated 28.05.2025 as passed

by NCLT, Mumbai.

6. It is also brought to our notice that the Applicant/Appellant avoided

making payments of the sums directed to be paid by NCLT, Mumbai as per

order dated 28.05.2025. The Applicant/Appellant even avoided to get the

books of accounts of Respondent No. 1 audited, since a part of the monetary

amount payable to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was dependent on the audited

financial statements. Therefore, its only after obtaining time from NCLT,

Mumbai to file a reply to the Execution Petition, the Applicant/Appellant has

refiled the above Appeal after clearing the defects. Therefore, the delay in

refiling the Appeal by the Applicant/Appellant was a litigative ploy and

nothing rather intentional and part of the strategic design to delay justice

being delivered.

7. Subsequently, the Appellant has filed an additional affidavit in I.A. No.

2114/2026, the Company Petition No. 105 of 2026. to further explain the

condonation of delay in re-filing the Appellant has brought the following in

his defence:

"....

b. That upon initial filing of the present Appeal, certain defects/objections were raised by the Registry vide notice dated 05.08.2025. The Appellant most respectfully submits that thereafter, defects were raised on multiple occasions by the Registry on 06.11.2025, 12.03.2026, 13.03.2026, and 18.03.2026 requiring repeated compliance and re-submission.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 4 of 10 c. That the Appellant and I made bona fide and continuous efforts to cure the defects as and when they were notified. However, each time the Appeal was re-filed after curing the earlier defects, certain additional/remaining defects were pointed out by the Registry, thereby necessitating further corrections and re-filings.

d. That during the relevant period, I was suffering from serious and persistent health issues, namely Irritable Bowel Syndrome ("IBS"). The condition commenced around October-November 2024 and significantly worsened between June - September 2025, thereby materially impairing my ability to address the defects in a timely and comprehensive manner. Further, it recently struck again, and my health deteriorated in February 2026. Notwithstanding the same, I made sincere efforts to intermittently resume professional duties and even appeared before the Hon'ble Tribunal during brief periods of recovery. However, the said medical condition resulted in unavoidable delays in rectifying all the defects collectively.

e. That in addition to the above, certain time was also consumed in obtaining requisite information, and clarifications from the Appellant, which were necessary for curing the defects pointed out by the Registry.

f. That it is submitted that the delay in re-filing is cumulative in nature and arose due to the repeated cycle of defect notifications and compliance, coupled with the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances. The total delay in re-filing the Appeal is approximately 217 days.

g. That the said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but is bona fide and occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. The Appellant has acted diligently and in good faith throughout and has been actively pursuing the matter."

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 5 of 10

8. Refiling delay is governed by Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules and it reads

as follows:

"26. Endorsement and scrutiny of petition or appeal or document.- (1) The person in charge of the filing-counter shall immediately on receipt of appeal or document affix the date and stamp of the Appellate Tribunal thereon and also on the additional copies of the index and return the acknowledgement to the party and he shall also affix his initials on the stamp affixed on the first page of the copies and enter the particulars of all such documents in the register after daily filing and assign a diary number which shall be entered below the date stamp and thereafter cause it to be sent for scrutiny.

(2) If, on scrutiny, the appeal or document is found to be defective, such document shall, after notice to the party, be returned for compliance and if there is a failure to comply within seven days from the date of return, the same shall be placed before the Registrar who may pass appropriate orders.

(3) The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party concerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary or extend the time for compliance.

(4) Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the appeal or pleading or document."

9. Perusal of Rule 26 of NCLAT shows that, upon scrutiny, the Registry of

the Tribunal, at the most, grants 7 days' time to rectify the defects, and as per

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 6 of 10 the stipulations contained under Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the

Appellant ought to have rectified the defects within the given 07 days only,

and the delay in refiling beyond 7 days cannot be condoned in those Appeals

without there being sufficient cause.

10. We note in the facts and circumstances of the case and from record too,

that the registry of this Appellate Tribunal had noted the defects on various

dates on 05.08.2025, 06.11.2025, 12.03.2026, 13.03.2026 and 18.03.2026

requiring compliance. As per records, we find that the first scrutiny and defect

notification was on 05.08.2025 which remained unattended for a very long

time, even though as per Rule 26(2) after intimation of the defects, the

Appellant should have complied and cured the defects within 7 days from the

date of return. The Appellant has not given full details of the dates on which

the defects were cured. Presuming that the defects were notified 5 times,

therefore, the total time available with the Appellant to cure the defects was

at the most about 5 x 7 days i.e. 35 days. But in this case, the total number

of days which have been taken by the appellant to cure the defects and refile

is 217 days. Moreover, we do not find any sufficient cause to explain the re-

filing delay except the issue of personal health of the advocate of the

Appellant. We do not want to comment on the cause for delay placed on record

due to ailment of caused for Appellant and don't find it to be a sufficient cause.

11. The Respondent has also vehemently opposed the condonation of re-

filing delay and has provided sufficient explanation as to the possible reasons

of not curing the defects and keeping the appeal pending before this Appellate

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 7 of 10 Tribunal, which have been noted herein earlier and are not being repeated

herein.

12. We also note a recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "CA

Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary Vs. Adani Infrastructure and

Developers Pvt. Ltd." reported in [2026 SCC OnLine SC 1097], wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court, while making a comparative analysis based upon the

Hon'ble Supreme Court Rules, has observed and settled down the controversy

that, when the Appeal itself has been filed beyond limitation for filing of

Company Appeal, the delay in refiling has to be condoned strictly within the

number of days as prescribed under Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016,

and not beyond it, and any period beyond its which sought to be condoned

for refiling of appeal, while condoning the delay in refiling beyond Rule 26(2)

i.e., 07 days cannot be granted. The relevant paragraph of the ratio laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted hereunder: -

"16. Can or should a litigant be permitted to circumvent the rigours of limitation by filing a defective appeal as a device to save limitation and, thereafter, to opt to cure the notified defects at leisure? Can or should this Court countenance such a practice? The answers to both questions have to be a resounding 'NO'. To hold otherwise would defeat the object of the IBC and render nugatory the discipline of timelines engrafted both in Section 62 as well as the SCR. Any such practice of filing a defective appeal, if encouraged, could result in a litigant dragging the process of re-filing for months and still being heard on his application for condoning re-filing delay premised on the ground that the IBC says nothing about re-filing delay and that the SCR being a procedural law must be read in a manner to aid the rendering of substantive justice to a party who is shown to be above board.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 8 of 10

17. Consequently, no litigant can be permitted to subvert the statutory scheme by seeking condonation of re-filing delay beyond the period of 28 (twenty-eight) days after having initially lodged a defective appeal. Once the window of 60 (sixty) days prescribed by the IBC, followed by the window of 28 (twenty-eight) days in re-filing the appeal upon curing of defects permitted by the SCR is shut, the right to appeal stands extinguished.

......

25. To sum up our discussion, 45 (forty-five) days is available under sub- section (1) of Section 62, IBC from date of receipt of the order of the NCLT to file an appeal involving a substantial question of law before this Court. As per sub-section (2), subject to sufficient cause being shown, the Supreme Court may allow an appeal to be filed within 15 (fifteen) days after the expiry of the said 45 (forty-five) days but not beyond. Curing of defects arising out of a defectively filed appeal under Section 62, IBC is permissible within 28 (twenty-eight) days of notification thereof by the Registry. If the defects are cured within 28 (twenty-eight) days, the appeal would deserve registration upon removal of the "D No.". However, there being no scope for curing defects after lapse of the period of 28 (twenty- eight) days in respect of an appeal under Section 62, IBC, filing of an application for re-filing delay does not arise. Consequently, no question of condonation of delay [even for a day beyond 60 (sixty) days (in case of an appeal which, apart from the little delay in filing beyond 45 (forty-five days), is otherwise defect-free) and 28 (twenty-eight) days (in case of a defective appeal)] arises for consideration."

13. We also note that the Code aims to ensure expeditious disposal of the

appeals within a period of three months as provided in the amended

provisions of the Code at 61(3) mandates that National Company Law

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 9 of 10 Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the Appeal within three months from the

date of its receipt.

14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the

background of the law of the land and no plausible answer qua delayed re-

filing in I.A. No. 2114/2026, we cannot consider the application for

condonation of delay in the re-filing and this stands rejected. As a

consequence, there is no occasion for us to consider the condonation of delay

in main application by three days. Consequently, the Company Appeal would

too stand dismissed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) pawan/ravi

Company Appeal (AT) No. 105 of 2026 10 of 10