Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) ... vs Mr. Om Prakash Kanoongo Liquidator

IN THE MATTER OF: The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), Regional Office, Goa Employees Provident Fund Organization. ...Appellant Versus Om Prakash Kanoongo, Liquidator of Western India Shipyard Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Kumar Dey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Smiti Verma, Mr. Pranay Chitale, Mr. Samyak Jain, Advocates for Applicant in 7431 of 2025.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

03.12.2025: I.A. No.5933 of 2025: This is an application praying for

condonation of 338 days' delay in refiling the appeal. Learned counsel for the

Appellant submits that there is explanation of delay and reason given is that

learned counsel for the Appellant was suffering from health ailments.

Reasons given are in Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the application, which are as follows:

"5. That upon receiving the information regarding the defects further time was consumed in the process of informing the same to the office of the appellant and thereafter in communicating the same to the counsel for rectifying the defects in the appeal, approving, and signing of the by the appellant.

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

Cont'd.../ 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.""

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that if delay is not condoned,

it will adversely affect the workmen.

3. Be that as it may. The explanation which has been given in Paras 5, 6

and 7 above, are not any satisfactory explanation for condoning refiling delay

of 338 days. Appeal arising of the insolvency proceeding, there are timelines

for completion of all processes. We, thus, are of the view that refiling delay of

338 days cannot be condoned. Refiling Delay Application is dismissed.

Appeal is also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1531 of 2025 2 of 2