Sarish Mittal vs Nipan Bansal
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 319 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In an appeal arising out of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where the timelines carry particular significance, an application for condonation of a delay in refiling an appeal beyond the prescribed period is to be decided on whether the explanation offered constitutes sufficient cause; a party's personal circumstances, such as caring for a seriously ill parent and the inconvenience of travelling to the forum, do not, without more, amount to sufficient cause to condone a delay of 193 days in refiling.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Sarish Mittal ...Appellant Versus Nipan Bansal (Through RP KSM Spinning Mills Ltd.) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Ms. Ankita M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Kaustubh Khanna and Mr. Saurav Kakroda, Advocates.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.03.2025 : I.A. No. 1093/2025
1. This is an application praying for condonation of 193 days delay in
refiling of the appeal.
2. In the application, the reason given by the appellant is that appeal was
filed on 11.07.2024 and defect sheet was marked on 22.07.2024 and he
attempted to file first refiling on 25.10.2024. In paragraph 3 of the
application, following is the reason given for explaining the delay:
"3. That the delay in re-filing of the present Appeal has occurred due to the following genuine and unavoidable circumstances:
a. That the Appellant's father suffered a severe brain stroke on 20.06.2024, resulting in a blood clot in his brain which has caused complete paralysis of the right side of his body. Since then, he has been completely bred-ridden and requires constant care and attention. b. That the Appellant, being the dutiful son and primary caregiver, has been personally attending to his father's medical needs, which include regular hospital visits, therapy sessions, and round-the-clock care at home.
c. That due to the sudden and serious nature of his father's medical condition, the Appellant had to prioritize his father's critical health situation over other matters, including the re-filing of the present Appeal. That the Appellant, despite his best intentions and efforts, was unable to devote time to legal proceedings as he was physically and mentally occupied with his father's treatment and care.
d. It is also submitted that the Appellant is a resident of Ludhiana, Punjab and has to travel to New Delhi for the same which is time consuming."
3. We find that the explanation given in paragraph 3 cannot be accepted
as sufficient cause for condoning the refiling delay of 193 days. Appeal arises
out of IBC proceeding where timelines have its own relevance.
4. We are of the view that no satisfactory reason has been given for
condoning the delay of 193 days in refiling.
The application for condonation of refiling delay is rejected.
Consequently, memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 319 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1093 of 2025 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