Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... vs Mr. Divyesh Desai Liquidator Of Nicomet ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 214 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The explanation offered for a delay of 649 days in refiling an appeal, consisting only of general averments of the counsel's ill health and subsequent office disorganisation, is not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay; general averments of this kind do not satisfy the requirement of showing sufficient cause, and the application for condonation is therefore dismissed, with the consequence that the refiled memo of appeal stands rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -II ...Appellants (Legal), EPFO Kandivali East Versus Divyesh Desai ...Respondents Liquidator of Nicomet Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Kr. Dey, Advocate. For Respondents : None.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
26.02.2026: I.A. No. 686 of 2026
This is an application praying for condonation of 649 days delay in
refiling of the appeal. The only ground given in the application is that counsel
for the applicant has been suffering from serious health ailments due to
which delay has been caused in the refiling which has been mentioned in
paragraph- 6 & 7. Paragraph-6 & 7 are as follows:-
"6. The learned counsel for the Applicant has been suffering from serious health ailments, including a heart condition requiring medical supervision, sternal complications, and pancreatic issues, which rendered him bedridden for a considerable period of time. Owing to such prolonged illness and physical incapacity, the counsel was unable to attend to his professional duties, resulting in the delay in refiling. Hence, refiling could not be completed within the limitation period of 7 days.
7. That it is respectfully submitted that due to the prolonged illness of the counsel, he could not attend to the office for a considerable period of time. Upon his return, the office was found to be in a disorganized and scattered condition, and it took some time to rearrange and put the records in proper order. "In the meantime, the Department also inquired about the status of the case, only thereafter the counsel immediately took up and duly attend to the pending matter."
The explanation given in paragraph 6 & 7 as above cannot be held to be
sufficient explanation for condonation of in ordinary delay of 649 days in
refiling of the appeal. The averments are only general averments which cannot
be held satisfactory reason. The refiling delay application is dismissed
consequently memo of appeal is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 214 of 2026
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free