Regional Provident Fund ... vs Mr. Ajay Gupta The Rp For M/S. Autopal ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 202 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay of 420 days in refiling a rectified appeal is not condoned where the explanation offered, that the counsel was ill and bedridden and that the office records were disorganised, is general and does not constitute sufficient cause for a delay of that length.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 202 of 2026 & I.A. No. 656, 740 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) ...Appellant(s) Regional Office, Jaipur Versus Ajay Gupta Resolution Professional of Autopal ...Respondent(s) Industries Ltd. & Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Kr. Dey, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Ms. Katyayani, Advocates ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
04.02.2026 I.A. No. 656 of 2026 This is an Application praying for
Condonation of 420 days Delay in refiling of the rectified appeal.
2. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Ld. Counsel for the
Applicant has been suffering from health ailment and was bedridden for
considerable period of time.
3. The reasons for delay has been mentioned in Paragraph 6 and 7 of the
Application, which 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 delay being inordinate of 420 days, we are of the view that explanation
given in Para 6 and 7 are general explanation without any sufficient reason to
condone 420 days delay.
4. We do not find any reason to condone 420 days delay in refiling
the Appeal. Application for condonation of delay in refiling the Appeal is
rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
2 of 2
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