Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals ... vs Kalpataru Projects International ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1845 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A litigant seeking condonation of delay in refiling an appeal must show sufficient cause for the entire period of delay; where the only explanation offered is the negligence of counsel's clerk and counsel's own failure to track the matter, and the delay is inordinate, that explanation does not constitute sufficient cause and condonation is refused. Where an appeal arising out of insolvency proceedings is sought to be refiled after an inordinate delay, the appellant's failure to pursue its cause with due vigilance weighs against the grant of condonation, and an unexplained lapse of that magnitude is not excused merely by the statement that it was neither intentional nor deliberate.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Balwani and Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Mr. Vikrant Singh, Ms. Anu Tewari and Mr. Pranav Saigal, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.10.2024 : I.A. No. 6704/2024
1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 291 days delay in
refiling of the Appeal.
2. The only reason given for refiling of the Appeal is in Para 1 of the
Application which is as follows:
"1. That the Applicant filed the present Appeal along with IAs on which certain defects were marked by the Registry. However, while re-filing the Appeal after curing the defects the undersigned counsel asked his clerk to refile the same but the file was misplaced by the clerk and he resigned/left the office, because to which the same has not been re-filed in the above-said case within seven days. Thereafter the counsel forgot to the track the matter and forgot to take care of the matter and due to which there has been 291 days delay in re-filing the appeal which was neither intentional nor deliberate."
3. We do not find any sufficient cause in the above Paragraph for
condonation of inordinate delay of 291 days. The Appeal arises out of IBC proceedings and an inordinate delay of 291 days cannot be condoned for the
reasons given in Paragraph 1.
4. The Appellant has not been vigilant to pursue his cause. We thus do
not find sufficient cause to condone the refiling delay of 291 days.
Refiling delay is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1845 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6704, 6759 of 2024 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