Rakshit Ashwinbhai Patel & Ors. & Ors vs Mr. Vinod Tarachand Agrawal

Rakshit Ashwinbhai Patel & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Vinod Tarachand Agrawal RP of Jay Formulation Ltd. ...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. 5930 of 2025 is an application filed by the

Applicant praying for condonation of 108 days delay in refiling of Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 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 Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the though the

refiling delay was for 108 days, this delay was caused by genuine and bonafide

reasons and was not intentional or deliberate. It was submitted that time was

1 of 5 I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2025 consumed since the Advocate on Record ("AOR" in short) and his clerical staff

were not co-located thereby requiring time in coordination. Admitting that the

Registry of NCLAT has raised defects in the month of May, 2025, this could not

be attended since the AOR was travelling abroad in view of the court vacations

in Ahmedabad during that month. Thereafter, as the NCLAT Registry was closed

in the month of June, this also came in the way of curing the defects on time.

Further, since the wife of the Applicant was suffering from medical hardships,

that was yet another factor causing the delay. However, thereafter the defects

were cured on 13.08.2025 and the case refiled before this Registry. When defects

were pointed out again by the Registry on 14.08.2025, the same was rectified

and matter refiled on 27.08.2025. The Registry had again raised defects on

01.09.2025 which was promptly redressed and refiled on 19.09.2025. It was

further submitted that no further defects were raised and the NCLAT Registry

had sent an e-mail dated 07.10.2025 in which it was clearly mentioned that the

Company Appeal Petition had been marked as defect free. This clearly

demonstrates that the Applicant had always been diligent in correcting the

defects raised by the Registry within a reasonable time. Elaborating the reasons

for delay further, it was stated that the time taken in the curing of defects in the

present matter was occasioned by the fact that the Registry had directed the

Applicant to type out more than 3000 pages of invoices which formed part of the

records before the Adjudicating Authority. It was mentioned that this fact was

also adverted to in their affidavit for refiling delay condonation placed before this

Tribunal.

4. Per contra, it is the contention of the Respondent that the contention of 2 of 5 I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2025 the Applicant that the appeal is defect free is incorrect and that it is still listed

with defects. It was also emphasised that the delay of 108 days was not only

unduly long but the reasons given for delay did not justify this protracted delay.

It was further pointed out that in a similar matter of seeking condonation of 104

days delay in refiling where similar grounds for delay was given, the delay

condonation was not permitted by this Tribunal in Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs

Ritu Rastogi, RP and Ors. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 2131 of 2024. It was further

added that since IBC framework requires time-bound closure, this appeal which

has been filed without sound reasons, the same may not be entertained.

5. We have heard both parties and seen the material on record carefully.

6. We have noticed the grounds which have been cited by the Applicant to

explain the reasons for delay in refiling thereafter. We notice that the Appeal

Petition had been filed within the statutorily permissible period but there has

been delay of 108 days in refiling thereafter. The period of delay in refiling is

reasonably long and hence it is necessary for us to assess the weight of the

explanations offered to justify the delay-span. It is seen from the sequence of

refiling steps as placed at page 3 of the Affidavit of the Applicant that the delay

occurred in the initial period after filing of the Petition from end of May to end of

August. The reasons put forth were that the AOR was out of the country during

May 2025 on account of vacations in Ahmedabad and thereafter due to vacations

in June 2025 in the NCLAT Registry. Further, some more time was taken

because of ill health of the wife of the Applicant which has been supported by

medical reports which are placed at Annexure-A in the IA No. 5930 of 2025. It

was also brought to our notice that the NCLAT Registry had directed the 3 of 5 I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2025 Applicant to provide typed transcripts of voluminous documents crossing more

than 3000 pages. This has been highlighted at para 8 of the refiling delay

condonation application which is as reproduced below:

"8. That, it is pertinent to mention that there was one affidavit filed by the appellants before the Ld. AA which runs into 3081 pages which was to be filed with this Hon'ble Tribunal. That time was consumed for getting the legible copies and for proper scanning of the said documents. However, after conducting the said exercise, it was felt by the office of the AOR that further defects may be raised by the Ld. Registry and it would not be possible to arrange for better readable copy of the documents annexed with the said Affidavit, therefore, only the Affidavit dt. 04.03.2025 (without annexures) has been filed with the captioned appeal. The appellants crave leave to produce those documents/ annexures which are forming part of the Affidavit dt.

04.03.2025, as and when required during the hearing of the appeal. A photo showing the print out of the annexures of the Affidavit running into 3075 pages is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- [B]."

7. It is well settled that refiling delay condonation has to be more liberally

considered as compared to delay condonation and therefore as long as plausible

and practical explanation is offered to explain the delay the same needs to be

given due consideration so that the cause of substantial justice is well served.

The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not only the length of delay but

sufficiency and satisfactory cause given to justify the explanation. In the present

facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the first two months and a bit

more was consumed by the absence of the legal counsel and court vacations

which lapse or mis-steps cannot be attributed to be lapse on the part of the

litigant. Thereafter, a little more than a month's delay had been caused for

medical reasons which we accept without any reservation. Thereafter, we find

that the Applicant has been diligently curing the defects as and when pointed

4 of 5 I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2025 out by the Registry including the stupendous task of typing out more than 3000

pages. The e-mail sent by the Registry also shows that the Appeal Petition had

been made defect free on 07.10.2025. When the Registry has itself accepted the

petition as defect free, we find no reasons to infer otherwise.

8. Given the circumstances explained in the present case, we are of the

considered view that the explanation offered constitutes sufficient cause to

justify the refiling delay and therefore in the interest of furthering the cause of

substantial justice, it would be prudent that the matter is decided on a contested

hearing. While taking a liberal view condoning the refiling delay, we would like

subject to the Applicant paying a sum of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

Only) to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund within a period of two weeks from the

date of the passing of this order. Accordingly, the IA stands disposed of and the

Company Appeal Petition No. 1534 of 2025 is listed for 26.02.2026.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Place: New Delhi Date: 10.02.2026

*Corrected on 13.02.2026 Abdul

5 of 5 I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2025