Rahul Chaudhary vs Reetesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors

I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026

[Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in IA No. 2810 of 2021 in IB No. 2728/ND/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAHUL CHOUDHARY S/o Late S.P. Chaudhary, R/o 4844/24, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110002 ...Appellant(s)

Versus

1. MR. REETESH KUMAR AGARWAL, Resolution Professional, IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00878/2017-2018/11475 Appointed vide order dated 18.09.2020 Unit No. 531, Fifth Floor, Plot No. 8 S. G. Shopping Mall, Community Centre, D.C. Chowk, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi 110085 Email Id.: carkagarwal@gmail.com

2. M/S POOJA MARBLES Successful Resolution Applicant D-3/3469, Vasant Kunj, ...Respondent(s) New Delhi - 110070 Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not made. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Harshit Gupta, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) The present application I.A. No. 318 of 2026 is an application filed

praying for condonation of 140 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins.) No. 137 of 2026.

Page 1 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026

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

application by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2026. Respondent No. 1

had accepted notice and was granted two weeks' time to file reply and

rejoinder, if any, was directed to be filed by the Appellant within one week

thereafter.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that though the

Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 2810 of 2021 in Company (IB) No.

2728/ND/2019 had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation,

defects were subsequently notified by this Registry on 01.08.2025 which

required substantial rectification and compliance. It was contended that

extensive defects were pointed out by the Registry which entailed procurement

and filing of legible copies of voluminous annexures, restructuring and

recompilation of records, re-pagination, cross-referencing of annexures and

curing deficiencies pertaining to documents which were not readily available

with the Applicant and therefore considerable time was consumed in

collecting, arranging and compiling proper and legible copies of the relevant

records. The delay was also occasioned by the fact that the Applicant had

been suffering from prolonged health complications including stomach and

liver ailments and as he was undergoing treatment at ILBS Hospital, Delhi,

his movement remained restricted during the relevant period. Reliance was

also placed on medical records pertaining to November and December 2024

relating to suspected thalassemia and allied ailments. It was further

submitted that the Applicant had to attend to family obligations arising out

Page 2 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 of treatment of his sister-in-law's mother who was undergoing breast cancer

treatment and thereafter had to travel to the United Kingdom from 02.09.2025

till 08.10.2025 for unavoidable livelihood and professional reasons. It was

additionally submitted that upon return from abroad, the Applicant suffered

from severe back pain and recurring health complications which further

delayed the process of curing the defects. Further the demise of the

Applicant's mother in April 2025 and need to perform the connected rituals

by the Applicant was also highlighted. It was further submitted by the Ld.

Counsel for the Applicant that delay got compounded further as certain

personal difficulties were also faced by the Counsel for the Applicant on

account of hospitalization of a family member due to cardiac complications.

According to the Applicant, despite continuous bonafide efforts having been

undertaken for curing the defects and complying with the Registry objections,

the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of

the Applicant and therefore deserved to be condoned in the interests of justice

particularly when the appeal petition itself had been filed within limitation.

4. Vehemently opposing the grounds articulated by the Applicant in

defence of the delay which had occurred in refiling, Ld. Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Applicant has failed to adduce sufficient

and satisfactory grounds justifying the extraordinarily protracted delay of 140

days in refiling the Appeal. The conduct of the Applicant throughout this long

span of 140 days demonstrates negligence, lack of diligence and casual

prosecution of the appeal. The explanations furnished by the Applicant of his

own alleged illness and that of his relatives, non-availability of documents,

Page 3 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 unavoidable foreign travel, family obligations and logistical inconvenience are

not only vague, routine and generalised excuses but is unsupported by fool-

proof documentary evidence. No continuous or date-wise explanation has

been furnished explaining the entire period during which the defects

remained uncured. The Applicant has clearly failed to establish that the delay

occurred due to circumstances genuinely beyond his control.

5. It was also contended that the Applicant has failed to disclose the

precise defects pointed out by the Registry, the dates on which steps were

undertaken for curing these defects and the exact period consumed in

procuring the alleged legible copies. Reliance was placed on the judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR

1962 SC 361 and State of West Bengal Vs. Howrah Municipality, AIR

1972 SC 749 to contend that sufficient cause must be explained for the entire

period of delay and that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be construed

liberally in absence of due diligence. Reliance was placed upon the judgment

of this Tribunal in Adisri Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India

in CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2022, wherein this Tribunal declined

to condone prolonged refiling delay in absence of satisfactory explanation and

held that condonation of delay in refiling is not available merely for the asking

and that the Applicant must demonstrate continuous diligence and

circumstances beyond its control. Most of the documents annexed with the

appeal being either electronic records or documents already accessible to the

Applicant, the explanation regarding time taken in procurement and

compilation of documents is misplaced. According to the Respondent, the

Page 4 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 medical documents relied upon by the Applicant do not disclose any

prolonged hospitalization or complete incapacitation preventing the Applicant

from instructing Counsel or curing the defects within reasonable time.

6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record. The short question which falls for consideration

is whether the Applicant has been able to show sufficient cause warranting

condonation of 140 days' delay in refiling of the Appeal.

7. It is the case of the Applicant that the objections raised by the

Respondent are wholly misconceived and contrary to the settled position of

law governing condonation of delay in refiling matters. Since Rule 26(2) of the

NCLAT Rules is merely directory in nature hence even if defects were not

cured within seven days, the appeal could not be rejected. In support of this

contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Tribunal in V.R.

Ashok Rao Vs. TDT Copper Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 780 of 2022, wherein

it was held that the period prescribed under Rule 26(2) is not mandatory and

delay in refiling can be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. In the

present case too, the delay was not intentional or deliberate since the

Applicant had made diligent, relentless and bonafide efforts for curing the

defects pointed out by the Registry. Further reliance was also placed upon

several judgments of this Tribunal wherein a liberal approach has been

consistently adopted in condoning delay in refiling particularly where health

concerns, logistical difficulties and procurement of documents were involved

as in Jagadish Vs. Oyo Hotels & Homes Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1408

of 2022; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs.

Page 5 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. & Ors. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1254 of 2023;

Compliance Construction Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rishabh Buildwell Pvt.

Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1108 of 2022; Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Vishal

Soyamul Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 214 of 2023; Bhagwati Singh Vs.

Incab Industries Ltd. in CA(AT) (Ins) No. 914 of 2022.

8. Per contra it was contended by the Respondent that there are several

judgments of this Tribunal like in Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Vs. H.L. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1700 of 2024 wherein this

Tribunal declined to condone prolonged delay in refiling by observing that

permitting unexplained and inordinate delay without convincing reasons

would defeat the expeditious and time-bound insolvency resolution

framework contemplated under the IBC. Drawing support from the judgment

of this Tribunal in Adisri Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India

in CA(AT)(Ins) Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2022, it was contended that delay in

refiling cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner and that the Applicant

is required to satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay by demonstrating

continuous diligence and bonafide efforts in curing the defects pointed out by

the Registry.

9. We are aware that this Tribunal has affirmed time and again the

principle that refiling delay condonation application deserves to be handled

in a liberal and lenient manner so that substantive justice does not get

derailed by procedural sleight of hand. Nevertheless, merely because an

Appeal was initially filed within limitation, this Tribunal has not to shut its

eyes in condoning prolonged delay in refiling unless satisfactory and

Page 6 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 sufficient explanation to justify the delay has been put forth by the concerned

party. Thus, condonation of delay is dependent on the facts and

circumstances of each case and no uniform, strait-jacketed formula can be

followed in this regard. Hence, what needs to be seen is whether the Applicant

has provided satisfactory, sufficient, credible and coherent explanation and

credible defect-wise and date-wise explanation for the delay.

10. It was canvassed by the Applicant that when the Registry had

specifically pointed out defects relating to illegibility of documents and the

need to arrange proper and readable copies of the records, the time taken in

completing this process constituted sufficient cause. Despite the Applicant

remaining persistently vigilant in curing the defects pointed out by the

Registry, unavoidable circumstances triggered by the Applicant's health-

related complications including treatment at ILBS Hospital leading to

restricted movement; other family members also facing medical issues; time

taken to perform necessary rituals besides need to travel abroad to fulfil

professional obligations besides logistical inconvenience and difficulties

encountered in procuring complete and legible records had cumulatively

added to the delay. It was urged that if these genuine impediments are not

taken into cognisance while considering of delay in refiling, the cause of

substantial justice would get defeated.

11. As regards the plea taken with regard to illness related delay, we notice

that the Applicant has relied upon medical prescriptions which all belong to

November-December 2024 period. On the other hand, the impugned order

and the appeal came to be filed at a later date in June-July 2025.

Page 7 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 Furthermore, it is contended by the Respondent that the medical documents

relied upon by the Applicant including the treatment at ILBS hospital during

July-August 2025 do not indicate complete incapacitation or immobilisation

of the Applicant which could have prevented the Applicant from taking

effective steps in curing the defects for such an extended period. Mere medical

consultation or treatment does not render any person wholly incapable of

coordinating with his legal counsel or create a situation of total inability to

prosecute their lis.

12. We further notice that the Applicant has specifically pleaded that he

had travelled to the United Kingdom from 02.09.2025 till 08.10.2025 for

unavoidable professional and livelihood-related reasons. Quite apart from the

fact that it has been pointed out by the Respondent that no documentary

material has been placed on record like passport entries, visa documents, air-

tickets, boarding passes, immigration records or any contemporaneous

material evidencing the alleged foreign travel to the United Kingdom, what we

find inherently contradictory is that while the Applicant has taken the plea of

having suffered practical immobilisation on account of ailments which led to

his inability in the timely rectification of the defects, the Applicant could

overcome the health incapacitation to undertake travel to United Kingdom at

a proximate time.

13. Even the other explanations relating to obligations arising out of cancer

treatment of the Applicant's sister-in-law's mother, besides attending of

rituals following demise of the Applicant's mother and personal inconvenience

faced by the Counsel of the Applicant are accepted, the Applicant has not

Page 8 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 indicated the exact period of delay caused by these factors in preventing

timely curing of the defects. The Applicant has also failed to disclose the

specific dates on which the alleged legible copies were procured or the exact

period consumed in reconstructing and recompilation of the records. No

continuous date-wise chronology has been furnished by the Applicant

indicating the exact steps undertaken by him to cure the defects after the

same were notified by the Registry on 01.08.2025. We are conscious of the

settled legal position that while considering applications seeking condonation

of delay in refiling, a liberal approach may be adopted but such a liberal

approach cannot be extended in a routine or mechanical manner especially

in proceedings arising under the IBC which contemplates time-bound

adjudication as one its primary objective. The Applicant seeking condonation

of delay is required to furnish sufficient and satisfactory explanation

demonstrating that the delay occurred due to circumstances genuinely

beyond his control. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the

Applicant lacks cogency and credibility and fails to satisfactorily explain the

prolonged delay of 140 days in refiling the Appeal or establish that there

prevailed unavoidable or exceptional circumstance beyond their control which

genuinely prevented the timely curing of the defects pointed out by the

Registry. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, we are

unable to persuade ourselves that sufficient and satisfactory explanation has

been furnished explaining the entire period of delay.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion

that sufficient cause has not been made out warranting condonation of 140

Page 9 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026 days' delay in refiling of the Appeal. I.A. No. 318 of 2026 is accordingly

rejected. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal also stands rejected. No costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Date : 13.05.2026 Sheetal

Page 10 of 10 I.A No. 318 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 137 of 2026