Om Logistics Limited vs Bakul Casting Private Limited

(Arising against the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench in TP No. 157 of 2019 in CP (IB) No. 535 of 2019].

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM LOGISTICS LIMITED CIN: U63002DL1999PLC101942 Having its registered address at: 130, Transport Centre, Ring Road, Punjab Bagh, New Delhi- 110035 ...Appellant

Versus

BAKUL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, CIN: U27310MP1999PTC013323 Having its registered address at: 2B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Road, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh- 45500 ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Subhash Sharma, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates.

For Respondent: PCS Pratik Tripathi.

ORDER

(06th May, 2026) INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

1. The present appeal has arisen from the order dated 03.02.2025 passed

by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench (Adjudicating

Authority) in TP No. 157 of 2019 [CP(IB) No. 535 of 2019], whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 (herein after referred as 'Code') by Om Logistics Limited- Appellant/

Operational Creditor, against Bakul Casting Private Limited-

Respondent/Corporate Debtor, was dismissed on the ground that the

Applicant had failed to prove the existence of operational debt and the

occurrence of default. The Appellant had sought initiation of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent on account of unpaid

transportation and logistics charges arising from long-standing commercial

transactions between the parties.

2. The Appellant submits that the impugned order failed to consider that

the operational debt which was duly acknowledged by Respondent through

email communications dated 06.12.2018 and pursuant to which a sum of

Rs.60,000/- was processed. No reply was ever given by Respondent to the

statutory demand notice dated 07.05.2019 issued under Section 8 of the IBC,

and that all invoices had been duly received and acknowledged by the

Respondent/Corporate Debtor without any pre-existing dispute. Aggrieved by

the rejection of its Section 9 petition despite alleging a clear operational debt

of Rs.10,52,127/- comprising principal amount of Rs.7,64,192/- and interest

of Rs.2,87,935/-, Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section

61 of the Code seeking setting aside of the impugned order and initiation of

CIRP against Respondent.

3. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 13 days in filing of the

appeal and a refiling delay of 198 days for which the Appellant filed an I.A.

6569 of 2025. On 09.12.2025 this Tribunal passed the following order:-

Page 2 of 16

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025

4. On 12.01.2026, notice was issued on refiling delay condonation

application to the respondent. After completion of pleadings this Tribunal

passed the following order on 08.04.2026:-

ORDER (Hybrid Mode)

08.04.2026: I.A. No. 6569, 6639, 6641 of 2025 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Pratik Tripathi, PCS for the Respondent.

Order reserved in the Application for condonation of delay in refiling the Appeal, condonation of delay in filing the Appeal as well as the Application for Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order.

Facts of the Case

5. The relevant facts, limited to those necessary for deciding the issue of

limitation and delay, are set out chronologically as under:

i. Om Logistics Limited/Appellant, a company engaged in providing

transportation and logistics services, had been rendering such

services to Bakul Casting Private Limited/Respondent, a

Page 3 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 manufacturing company dealing in steel and allied products, in the

course of their commercial dealings.

ii. On account of alleged non-payment of dues arising from such services,

Appellant, claiming to be an Operational Creditor, filed an application

under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking

initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against

Respondent for an operational debt of Rs.10,52,127/-.

iii. The said application was registered as CP(IB) No. 535 of 2019 [TP No.

157 of 2019] before the Learned Adjudicating Authority, which, upon

consideration of the material on record, vide impugned order dated

03.02.2025, dismissed the application holding that the Appellant had

failed to establish the existence of an undisputed operational debt and

default.

iv. The impugned order was pronounced on 03.02.2025, thereby

triggering the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under

Section 61 of the IBC. As per the statutory scheme, the Appellant was

required to file the appeal within 30 days, i.e., on or before 05.03.2025,

with a further condonable period of 15 days, extending the outer limit

to approximately 20.03.2025.

v. The Appellant filed the present appeal on 18.03.2025, i.e., on the 43rd

day from the date of the impugned order, which falls within the

extended condonable period of 15 days. Along with the appeal, an I.A.

No. 6639 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in

filing, attributing the delay to late receipt of the copy of the impugned

order from the counsel of the Appellant.

Page 4 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 vi. However, upon filing, the appeal was found to be defective by the

Registry. The defects were notified to the Appellant, requiring

rectification before the appeal could be treated as properly instituted.

Instead of curing these defects within a reasonable time, the Appellant

took an extended period to comply. The Appellant filed I.A. No. 6569

of 2025 seeking condonation of 198 days delay in refiling.

vii. The Appellant has stated that its Authorized Signatory, who was the

custodian of records, remained unavailable till 13.04.2025, which

contributed to the initial delay in curing the defects. Thereafter,

according to the Appellant, the matter underwent multiple rounds of

scrutiny by the Registry, during which fresh defects were pointed out

from time to time.

viii. It is the Appellant's case that between March 2025 and October 2025,

the appeal went through more than 15 rounds of scrutiny and re-filing,

with defects being raised and removed in stages. Ultimately, the

defects were cured and the appeal was re-filed after a delay of 198 days

from the initial filing.

ix. Thus, the essential factual timeline relevant for deciding the present

appeal is that the impugned order was passed on 03.02.2025, the

appeal was filed on 18.03.2025 within the condonable period, but

remained defective and was ultimately re-filed only after a substantial

delay of 198 days, which is the subject matter of the present

application for condonation.

Page 5 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 x. The Respondent has contested the aforesaid delay in refiling and has

sought dismissal of the appeal at the threshold on account of delay in

refiling by the Appellant.

Submissions of the Appellant

6. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, that the present

Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in re-filing of the

appeal filed vide IA No. 6569 of 2025. The Application is bona fide and

necessitated due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant.

7. Ld. counsel submits that there is a delay of 198 days in re-filing, which

occurred as the Authorized Signatory, who is also the custodian of necessary

documents for removal of defects, was out of station due to personal

exigencies and returned only on 13.04.2025. Consequently, the defects could

not be cured earlier. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to

genuine and unavoidable reasons.

8. It is submitted that the appeal was initially filed on 18.03.2025, and

upon scrutiny, the Registry returned the appeal pointing out various defects.

Thereafter, the appeal and connected interlocutory applications underwent

multiple rounds of scrutiny, and defect sheets were issued from time to time.

The counsel has submitted a detailed date-wise table has been provided in

the affidavit which has been extracted below:-

S. Date of Proceeding/ Remarks showing diligence No. Defect Filing Report/ Scrutiny 1. 24.03.2025 Main Appeal First defect sheet issued after initial filing 2. 21.04.2025 Main Appeal Defects pointed out again after curing earlier defects Page 6 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 3. 21.04.2025 I.A. Separate defects for interlocutory application 4. 01.05.2025 I.A. Defects cured and rescrutinised 5. 07.05.2025 Main Appeal Further objections raised 6. 14.05.2025 Main Appeal Registry raised fresh objections 7. 14.05.2025 I.A. Delay-related correction sought 8. 27.05.2025 Main Appeal Defects again reported 9. 08.07.2025 Main Appeal Continued scrutiny after re- filing 10. 18.08.2025 Main Appeal Defects pointed out 11. 18.08.2025 I.A. Corresponding IA defects 12. 29.08.2025 Main Appeal Re-scrutiny post compliance 13. 02.09.2025 Main Appeal Minor defects at re-filing stage 14. 11.09.2025 Main Appeal Residual objections 15. 15.09.2025 I.A. (multiple) Defects in IAs and pagination 16. 20.09.2025 Main Appeal Further scrutiny 17. 24.09.2025 Main Appeal Undertaking related defect 18. 24.09.2025 I.A. Pagination / index related defect 19. 16.10.2025 I.A. Final scrutiny 20. 31.10.2025 I.A. Documents marked DEFECT- FREE 21. 04.11.2025 Main Appeal Appeal marked DEFECT-FREE 22. 09.12.2025 Appeal Appeal numbered and listed Registered

The record reflects that defect sheets were issued on multiple dates including

24.03.2025, 21.04.2025, 01.05.2025, 07.05.2025, 14.05.2025, 27.05.2025,

08.07.2025, 18.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 02.09.2025, 11.09.2025, 15.09.2025,

20.09.2025, 24.09.2025 and 16.10.2025, culminating in the appeal being

marked defect-free on 04.11.2025 and the IAs on 31.10.2025, and thereafter

registered on 09.12.2025.

9. It is submitted that the said date-wise table unequivocally establishes

that the Appellant was continuously pursuing the matter and diligently

Page 7 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 removing defects as and when pointed out by the Registry. Each defect report

necessarily presupposes a prior re-filing after curing earlier defects, thereby

demonstrating that the appeal was repeatedly re-filed and never remained

unattended or dormant at any stage.

10. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the defect sheets

submitted with the additional-affidavit reveal the nature of objections raised

by the Registry, which were largely technical and procedural in nature, such

as defects in pagination, indexing, filing of certified copy or exemption

application, uploading of legible documents, proper bookmarking, payment

receipts, and compliance with filing formats. The counsel submits that these

were not substantive defects, but curable procedural irregularities, which

required repeated compliance due to evolving and fresh objections at each

stage of scrutiny.

11. Ld. Counsel further submits that the delay of 198 days is not a single

continuous delay, but is the cumulative result of multiple cycles of scrutiny,

re-filing, and fresh objections raised by the Registry over a prolonged period.

It is emphasized that the Appellant acted promptly after each defect report

and undertook necessary corrective steps, and therefore the delay is purely

procedural and bona fide.

12. It is also submitted that the appeal was never lying dormant and was

actively pursued throughout. Even during periods where minor delay

occurred, such delay was occasioned due to the volume and nature of

objections and the time required to cure technical defects, including

compliance with formatting, documentation, and procedural requirements.

Page 8 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025

13. The counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no intention

whatsoever to delay the proceedings, nor has the Appellant derived any benefit

from such delay. On the contrary, refusal to condone the delay would cause

grave prejudice to the Appellant by depriving it of adjudication on merits,

whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay is

condoned.

14. He further submits that all defects have now been removed to the

satisfaction of the Registry, and the appeal stands in order and has already

been registered. This itself demonstrates that the Appellant has complied with

all procedural requirements and has acted with due diligence.

15. In view of the above, the counsel for the Appellant submits that the

delay in re-filing deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice, equity, and

fair play, particularly when the matter involves substantial questions

requiring adjudication on merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds.

He prays for condonation the delay of 198 days in re-filing of the appeal in the

interest of justice.

Submissions of The Respondent

16. PCS Pratik Tripathi appearing for the Respondent submitted that the

present Application for condonation of delay in re-filing is liable to be

dismissed at the threshold as the Appeal itself is barred by limitation and

suffers from serious defects. The conduct of the Appellant clearly

demonstrates lack of diligence, negligence, and an afterthought attempt to

revive a time-barred remedy. The Appellant has failed to show any bona fide

Page 9 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 or sufficient cause for condonation of delay and is merely attempting to

misuse the process of law.

17. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 03.02.2025 and

the statutory limitation period expired on 05.03.2025. The Appeal was

admittedly filed on 18.03.2025 with a delay of 13 days, thus the main appeal

was filed only on the 43rd day from the date of pronouncement.

18. He further submits that the Appellant has not even complied with the

mandatory procedural requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned

order along with the Appeal. No application seeking exemption from filing the

certified copy has been filed, nor has any explanation been provided for such

omission. In the absence of compliance with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules,

2016, the Appeal itself is defective and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

19. It is submitted that the Appellant has deliberately suppressed material

facts from this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Appellant failed to disclose that a Civil

Suit (Commercial) No. 385 of 2025 is already pending before the learned

District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, involving the same subject matter.

Whereas in his appeal he has categorically stated at point no. 10 that no writ

petition or suit regarding the matter in respect of which this appeal is

preferred has been filed before any other authority or is pending before any of

them. The suppression of such a crucial fact demonstrates lack of bona fides

and disentitles the Appellant from any equitable relief.

20. It is submitted that the explanation furnished by the Appellant for delay

in re-filing is wholly vague, generic, and insufficient. The Appellant has sought

Page 10 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 to justify a delay of 198 days merely on the ground that its Authorized

Signatory was unavailable until 13.04.2025. Such a bald and routine

explanation does not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of law

and fails to justify the prolonged inaction.

21. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant has utterly failed

to demonstrate any bona fide intention or due diligence in prosecuting the

matter. The delay is clearly attributable to gross negligence and inaction, and

cannot be condoned on the ground of personal inconvenience.

22. It is submitted that the record clearly reveals persistent negligence on

the part of the Appellant in curing defects pointed out by the Registry. The

same defects were repeatedly notified and remained uncured over multiple

dates, including 24.03.2025, 21.04.2025, 05.05.2025, 15.05.2025,

24.05.2025, 29.08.2025, 02.09.2025, 15.09.2025, and even as late as

16.10.2025.

23. The Respondent submits that such repeated lapses and continued

failure to remove defects clearly establish gross negligence and a casual

approach towards judicial proceedings. These circumstances, by no stretch of

imagination, can be treated as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

24. The Respondent places further reliance upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81", wherein it has been categorically held that the

party seeking condonation must establish that it was prevented by sufficient

cause from approaching the Court and that negligence or lack of bona fides

cannot be condoned.

Page 11 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025

25. Respondent further submits that the Appellant has remained absent on

several occasions before the Hon'ble NCLT, including hearings dated

19.06.2020, 23.10.2020, 04.03.2021, 05.07.2021, 26.07.2021, 25.04.2024,

and 06.01.2023. This clearly demonstrates a consistent pattern of non-

prosecution and lack of seriousness on the part of the Appellant.

26. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent that the proceedings

under Section 9 of the IBC were prolonged from 2019 to 2025 and ultimately

rejected by the Hon'ble NCLT. The Appellant's conduct throughout has been

dilatory and negligent. He therefore prays that this Appellate Tribunal may be

pleased to dismiss I.A. No. 6569 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay; and

consequently, dismiss the Appeal as barred by limitation.

Analysis & Findings }}

27. We have heard the parties and gone through the records of the case.

The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the delay of 198

days in re-filing the appeal has been properly explained, and whether such

delay deserves to be condoned in law.

28. At the outset, we note that limitation under the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code is strict and time-bound. An appeal is required to be filed

within 30 days, with a further grace period of 15 days, if sufficient cause is

shown. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 03.02.2025,

the and the 30 days limitation period expired on 05.03.2025. The appeal was

filed on 18.03.2025, i.e., on the 43rd day. On scrutiny by the Registry on

24.03.2025 the appeal was found to be defective and Appellant was

accordingly informed. The Appellant took 198 days to re-file the appeal after

Page 12 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 removing objections. Thus, although the initial filing was within the extended

limitation period, there was a substantial and prolonged delay in completing

the filing process.

29. The Appellant has argued that the delay in re-filing should be viewed

leniently and not as strictly as delay in initial filing. It is stated that the

authorized signatory was unavailable till 13.04.2025 and that thereafter

multiple rounds of scrutiny by the Registry led to delay. It is also argued that

more than 15 rounds of objections were raised and cleared over time, and

therefore the delay was procedural and not intentional.

30. On the other hand, the Respondent has opposed the condonation of

delay and submitted that the delay is excessive and not properly explained. It

is argued that the reasons given by the Appellant are vague and inconsistent,

and that repeated failure to remove defects shows negligence rather than

diligence. It is further submitted that mere personal inconvenience or

procedural issues cannot be treated as "sufficient cause", especially when the

delay is as long as 198 days.

31. We note that the Appellant has ascribed the delay in refiling to personal

exigency of the authorised signatory and to the procedural delay in the

Registry in the process of clearing the defects. The first cause cited by

Appellant for delay relating to the "personal exigency" of the authorized

signatory is too general and unsupported by any material. We find the

explanation given by the Appellant, that the delay happened because the

Authorized Signatory was unavailable, is not at all convincing. The reasons

for non-availability of authorised signatory have not been explained at all in

the application. The Appellant is a company, and a company does not depend

Page 13 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 on just one person for performing a particular activity. It can act through its

directors, officers, or any other authorized representative. If one person was

unavailable, the company could have easily appointed or authorized someone

else to handle the matter. In normal business and legal practice, companies

act through multiple persons. Therefore, this reason does not justify such a

long delay and instead shows lack of proper care and diligence on the part of

the Appellant.

32. The second explanation for delay has been ascribed to the procedural

delays in the Registry. We note from the records submitted by appellant itself

in its additional-affidavit that the Registry has been repeatedly pointing out

the same delays on repeated occasions but the same were not cured by the

Appellant in time. On 14.05.2025 the following two defects were pointed out

by the Registry:

i. PDF of IAs should be removed from the main appeal of PDF and uploaded separately, link with the main appeal, and pay fees for IAs accordingly. (Note-don't remove IAs in the INDEX)..

ii. The original certified copy of the Impugned Order has not been filed, Either file the Impugned order stamped (paid/unpaid) coloured copy of the Impugned order or file an IA (for exemption from filing a certified copy of the Impugned order)

These very same defects were again intimated to Appellant on 27.05.2025;

08.07.2025; 18.08.2025; 29.08.2025 and 02.09.2025. It has taken more than

three and half months for the Appellant to clear these two defects. Such

conduct of Appellant clearly reflects lack of seriousness and due diligence on

the part of the Appellant.

Page 14 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025

33. It is also pertinent to note that the conduct of the Appellant before the

Adjudicating Authority reflects lack of diligence. From the record, it is evident

that despite multiple opportunities granted by the NCLT, the Appellant failed

to effectively prosecute its application. Hearings dated 19.06.2020,

23.10.2020, 04.03.2021, 05.07.2021 and 26.07.2021 show that the matter

was repeatedly listed, yet Appellant remained absent. Even thereafter, on

subsequent dates including 06.01.2023 and 25.04.2024, the proceedings

continued without any meaningful progress attributable to the Appellant. This

pattern indicates that the Appellant did not appear with due seriousness

despite repeated listings and opportunities, thereby contributing to prolonged

pendency before the Adjudicating Authority. Such conduct, when seen along

with the delay in filing and re-filing the present appeal, reflects a consistent

lack of diligence in pursuing the remedy.

34. The records of the case clearly show that the Appellant was not at all

serious in getting the defects cleared by Registry, even after the same have

been repeatedly pointed out by the Registry on consecutive occasions over a

period of time. We are aware that courts should shows some leniency in cases

of delay in refiling, however, such leniency cannot extend to cases, where

there is a long and continuous delay without proper justification. In the

present case, the delay is not of a few days but of 198 days, which is

significant. We are also cognizant of the fact that the IBC is a time-bound law,

allowing such long delays without proper justification would defeat the

objective of speedy resolution under the Code and dilute the discipline

required in insolvency proceedings. In this case the delay in refiling has been

Page 15 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025 caused due to laxity on the part of Appellant for which he has tried to blame

the procedures in Registry.

35. It is a settled principle of law that delay can be condoned only when

sufficient cause is shown. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Basawaraj & Anr.

v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81", has clearly held that

the expression "sufficient cause" must be construed strictly and that delay

caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be condoned

merely on equitable grounds. In the present case, the conduct of the Appellant

does not satisfy this standard.

36. Accordingly, we hold that the delay of 198 days in re-filing has not been

sufficiently explained and does not deserve to be condoned. The application

for condonation of delay is therefore rejected, and as a result, the appeal is

dismissed. Pending IAs are closed. No order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi

Harleen/ Pragya (LRA)

Page 16 of 16 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025