Shri. B. Mahesh vs Mr. Abhay Narayan Manudhane

IN THE MATTER OF: Shri B. Mahesh & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Abhay Narayan Manudhane & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Seshagiri Vadlamani and Ms. Ananya Kukreti, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Meghna Rao and Mr. Harshit Goel, Advocates for Respondent no.1. Ms. Varsha Banerjee and Ms. Aishwarya Nabh, Advocates for Respondent no. 5.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present is a case where the Applicant has filed IA No. 1585 of 2025

praying for condonation of 13 days of delay in filing of CA (AT)(Ins) No. 419 of

2025 and IA No. 1527 of 2025 praying for condonation of 125 days in refiling

of the said Appeal.

2. For the present, we propose to deal with I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 for

condonation of delay in refiling.

3. The Applicant has offered the following explanation in paragraphs 3 to 6

in IA No. 1527 of 2025 justifying the refiling delay which is as extracted below:-

"3. That a delay of 125 days has been occasioned in the refiling of the captioned appeal of the Appellants since the original date of defects being notified to the Applicants.

4. That on 17.10.2024, the Applicants had filed their Appeal and that the Registry had marked certain defects only on 23.10.2024 after which the matter was refiled within the specified period of one week on 29.10.2024.

5. That the matter was sought to be scrutinised by the Registry, however, defects were only marked on 16.11.2024 due to some technical issue whereafter the matter is being refiled as directed by the officials after clearing the defects.

6. That delay has been occasioned on account of correction of the defects marked by the Registry and owing to a technical issue resulting in the delay in marking of defects despite the efforts of the Counsel. Further, that grave prejudice would be caused to the Appellants herein if the present Appeal is not allowed and that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents in doing so."

4. When the matter was heard on 25.04.2025, on the request of the

Applicant, liberty was granted by this Tribunal to file an Additional-Affidavit

giving more detailed explanation for the refiling delay. The Additional- Affidavit

has been filed and at paragraphs 4 to 10 thereof further explanations have been

given which are as reproduced below:-

"4. Subsequently, upon seeking an update on the scrutiny of the matter by the clerk of the counsel, the matter came to be scrutinised only on 16.11.2024 when substantial defects came to be marked by the Registry. At this point, the Appellants were already under 16 days of delay in refiling. The Appellants also realised that the matter had been filed with a delay of 13 days.

5. The counsel for the Appellants, therefore, drafted an application for condonation of delay in filing as well as refiling and sought affidavits in support of the same from the Appellants.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the counsel for the Appellants had annexed a copy of the power of attorney of the Appellants as an annexure as it had been for the purposes of proceedings before other

2 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 Hon'ble Courts which was duly explained to the dealing scrutiny head checking the matter and that they had assured the counsel for the Appellant that the same would not be considered a defect.

7. However, wherein January 2025 the dealing head changed, the clerk of the counsel for the Appellants was informed that separate affidavits for all the Appellants would have to be placed on record. This confusion was for the reason that the defects had not been cleared from the defect list. Thereafter, when the issue was clarified to the dealing head, he directed the counsel to place the power of attorney with the vakalatnama. This process was significantly time consuming since at this stage, all the annexures would have to be renumbered which consequently mean that the entire document would have to be renumbered all over again.

8. The dealing head had also similarly marked a defect seeking clarity on the IA number since the Impugned Order had been passed by the Hon'ble NCLT Mumbai while dismissing the Appellants' application for impleadment in an application already filed before the Hon'ble NCLT. This issue had similarly been clarified earlier but had to be clarified again with changes eventually having to be made by the drafting counsel to satisfy the dealing head.

9. It is pertinent to mention that despite the clearing of defects by the Appellants, on a few occasions, the subsequent defect sheets shared by the Registry continued to reflect older defects as marked by the Registry which is contrary to the actual position of the matter. This particular issue is evident from the last defect sheet that had been notified by the Registry dated 04.03.2025 wherein it has been particularly mentioned "Defect No. 8 not cured". This indicates that all other defects had duly been cured by the counsel for the Appellants and it was only one defect that needed to be cured which was also cleared on the same day. However, this was not done at any stage prior to this which has resulted in confusion and needless delay in clearing of the matter.

10. It is also relevant to note that in the intervening period during which the Appeal was defective, the drafting counsel was also under personal difficulty owing to ill health, hospitalisation, and subsequent passing away of his grandmother and had to intermittently travel or take leave for the said reason"

3 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025

5. Reply has been filed by Respondent No.1/ Resolution Professional ('RP'

in short) and Respondent No.5- Unity Small Finance Bank Limited to the

refiling delay application filed by the Applicant. Both the Respondents have

vehemently opposed the refiling condonation delay application filed by the

Applicant. Respondent No.1 at paragraph-8.16 of their reply has stated that

"no sufficient or justiciable reason has been given by the appellant for the

exorbitant delay of 125 days in the delay of refiling the appeal and it is submitted

that the same is only done to further delay the proceedings and the resolution of

the present CIRP in contravention to the timelines under IBC". Similarly, the

Respondent No.5-Financial Creditor has also opposed the refiling delay

condonation by asserting that the Applicant "has caused an intentional and

inordinate delay of 125 days in curing the defects and refiling the appeal, from

29.10.2024 to 04.03.2025, without any credible or sufficient explanation. The

Courts have consistently held that the procedural timelines must be followed,

and repeated refiling delays reflect gross negligence and lack of diligence".

6. Both Respondent No. 1 and 5 have relied on the judgment of this Tribunal

in Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in CA

(AT)(Ins). No. 1700 of 2024 to assert that when sufficient cause cannot be

demonstrated for the refiling delay, the delay condonation application should

be rejected. The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment which have been

relied upon by them are as reproduced below:-

"5. Per contra, it is the contention of the Respondent that the explanation and reasoning given by the Applicant to justify the delay of 205 days' lacks substance and fails to establish the matrix of 'sufficient cause' as

4 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 required for condonation of delay in refiling after such an inordinately long period. It was pointed out that assertion made by the Applicant of mishandling of their file by the NCLAT Registry is dubious. Even the ground raised that they had to engage a local clerk to remedy the defect is baseless since the counsel and the law firm were both located in Delhi. Moreover, the contention that there was need to engage an external local clerk to handle clearing of routine defects in filing lacked credibility. It was pointed out the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coal Fields Limited AIR 1962 SC 361 has emphasized the necessity for a party seeking condonation of delay to exhibit diligence and to substantiate their claims with credible evidence. On the other hand, the Applicant herein has failed to show that there was no negligence or inaction on their part. Had the Applicant been more careful and adequately vigilant, the Registry would not have been compelled to point out identical deficiencies/discrepancies over and over again. Thus, the explanations provided not only lack substance but also indicate negligence and a casual approach on the part of the Applicant in the discharge of their legal obligations. It was vehemently contended that allowing the refiling delay in the present case would undermine the integrity of judicial process.

8. We have perused the defect sheets which have been placed at Annexure-II by the Applicant in their rejoinder reply at pages 14-18. When we peruse the defect sheets, we find that on each of the dates on which scrutiny was undertaken by the NCLAT Registry, the defects noticed by the Registry were intimated on the very same date to the Applicant and seven days' time period was allowed each time to correct the defects. Most of the defects pointed out are clerical and routine in nature such as illegible/dim copies, incorrect indexation, non- pagination, non-filing of caveat clearance, non-filing of declaration and verification supporting of memorandum of appeal etc. When we see the defect sheets, we find that the Registry has repeated on each occasion the presence of more or less the same set of defects which clearly show that no serious endeavour was made by the Applicant in making any perceptible headway in curing the defects. Given this position, we cannot brush aside the fact that the defects were being handled in a rather cavalier manner. The very fact the Registry had to repeatedly intimate the same set of defects each time shows that the Applicant did not take proper interest in pursuing his own application in a timely manner. Neither has any explanation been given to show that the delay was on

5 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 account of reasons beyond the control of the Applicant. This not only indicates the casual disposition of the Applicant but also their gross indifference towards the need of respecting timeliness in the completion of the insolvency resolution process which is one of the avowed objectives of the IBC. Such a lack-lustre, careless and negligent approach does not meet our countenance.

11. Under IBC, CIRP is envisaged to be a time-bound process which has to be completed in 330 days. Allowing refiling delay of 205 days without convincing reasons would tantamount to encouraging parties to play havoc with timelines and put unwarranted speed-breakers in the resolution process which does not commend us. In the given circumstances, we are reluctant to allow the Applicant the luxury of 205 days delay in refiling in IBC proceedings.

12. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the Application filed for seeking condonation of 205 days delay in refiling the appeal. Sufficient grounds have not been made out for condonation of delay in refiling. IA No. 3202 of 2024 is rejected. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in refiling, the Memo of Appeal is also rejected."

7. Reliance has also been placed by Respondent No. 5 on the judgment of

this Tribunal in Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited Versus Ritu Rastogi and Others

in CA(AT)(Ins)No. 2131 of 2024 in which refiling delay condonation was

rejected due to inadequate justification and procedural negligence. The relevant

paras relied upon is as extracted below:-

"15. To condone the delay, the Appellant has to carefully explain each day's delay in filing/re-filing the appeal. In the present case, the only reasoning provided to explain the delay is the fact that the father of the counsel handling the matter fell ill in September and suffered a brain stroke on 29.09.2024. However, the Appellant has failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for not taking any steps from 11.07.2024 all the way till 31.08.2024.

16. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 30.04.2024. The Appeal was e-filed on 13.06.2024 which was well within period of

6 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 45 days including condonation of delay. However, when the defects were notified by the NCLAT registry on 04.07.2024, the Appeal was finally refiled on 23.10.2024 after rectification of defects, with a delay of 104 days. From the explanation we find no reasons except for medical condition with the father of one of the Advocates which occurred sometime on end September. There is total silence from July to end September, 2024. Explanation provided doesn't inspire much confidence. We don't find the reasons explained at paras 3, 4, 5 reproduced earlier to be sufficient to condone the delay in refiling. We find that the Appellant has been negligent in prosecuting the refiling, which in turn indicates lack of diligence of the Appellant or its bona fides. The catena of judgements as noted in previous paragraphs support the case of the Respondent and go against the Appellant. In the facts and circumstances, we therefore don't find sufficient justification to condone the refiling delay of 104 days in time bound IBC proceedings."

8. Further, in support of their contention that delay in refiling can only be

condoned if this Tribunal is satisfied of the existence of a reasonable and

justifiable cause, Respondent No.1 has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal

in Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vaibhav Khandelwal & Anr. in

CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1524 of 2024 and the relevant paragraphs relied upon are as

reproduced below:-

"8. At the outset, we would like to point out that it is well recognised that while dealing with refiling delay condonation applications, a liberal approach is expected to be normally taken and as long as sufficient cause is shown, such delays in refiling are to be condoned. Be that as it may, it also goes without saying that the delay in refiling can be condoned only if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was reasonable and justifiable cause for not refiling the appeal on time. In other words, the delay has to be tested on the parameters of reasonableness so that the objectives of IBC of time-bound resolution is not diluted and the interest of either of the parties involved is not prejudicially affected in any manner.

9. The question of condoning any delay in refiling would have to be seen in the context of the explanation offered to find out whether the reasons

7 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 cited were beyond the control of the Applicant and all efforts were made to overcome the delay with due diligence and utmost despatch. There is no hard and fast rule to measure due diligence and due despatch. However, due diligence and despatch can always be assessed from how a prudent person would act or can be expected to act in a timely manner in similar circumstances. We would now like to examine whether the present Applicant has been able to adduce cogent grounds to satisfy us that there were circumstances beyond their control which led to the delay in clearing the defects. When we look at the history of filing, we find that the Appeal along with application seeking condonation of delay was filed in March, 2024 and defects were intimated soon thereafter by the Registry in the same month. Since the time of intimation of defects, the Applicant has taken four months to remedy the defects. One of the principal explanations attributed for the delay by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant was that there were five inter-connected appeals with each of them having multiple applications and hence the defects which had to be corrected were quite a few.

The Applicant has also attributed the delay in correcting the defects on account of a sudden barrage of emails and SMSs on the defects in the petition having been received from the NCLAT Registry. It was stated that the clerk of the counsel who was conversant with dealing with such defective petitions was ailing and as he was not able to attend to the defects, it led to the delay. We however find that the ill health of the clerk has not been substantiated by placing on record any proof of his illness which puts a question mark on the plausibility of this excuse. Even if we accept that the clerk was suffering from some ailment, this impediment was not that formidable that it could not have been overcome. The Applicant could have always substituted this clerk with some other team-member. This scapegoat also appears to be a humbug since ample evidence has been placed by the Respondent to show that the counsel of the Applicant was pursuing various litigations before other forums of law during the same period of time when the clerk was purportedly ailing. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent in their additional affidavit at pages 19 to 41 has placed on record that the counsel for the Applicant had been filing cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India during the same time period.

This has not been controverted by the Applicant. That being the case when the counsel for the Applicant was at ease in contemporaneously filing litigations in other courts, if he was sufficiently diligent, he could have displayed similar level of alacrity in dealing with defects in the present set of appeals filed before this Tribunal to render them defect-free. It

8 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 becomes clear that the Applicant was actively litigating before other judicial forum while being clearly negligent in following-up the present matter before the Tribunal. This is indicative of negligence and inaction on the part of the Applicant. We therefore do not find that sufficient cause has been made out which would warrant overlooking the delay caused in curing the defects on the grounds of ill-health of the clerk."

9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

records carefully.

10. It is the case of the Respondents No.1 and 5 that delay in refiling is for

an inordinately protracted period of 125 days, hence, it is necessary for the

Tribunal to be satisfied with the plausibility of the reasons given by the

Applicant to explain the delay. It is also the contention of the Respondents that

while withdrawing I.A. No. 7696 of 2024 in Company Appeal No. 1776 and 1777

of 2024, the Applicant had made an averment before the Court on 30.01.2025

that they have been able to cure all the defects in the present appeal and that

the cured appeal has been refiled which is under scrutiny for the listing. It was

contended that the Applicant was indulging in forum-shopping and in the

process did not come up with clean hands as evidenced from the fact that they

had made a factually incorrect statement that the Appeal petition was defect-

free at a time when the main Appeal was still under defects as on 30.01.2025.

It was, therefore, contended by the Respondents that the application was liable

to be dismissed. Attention was also adverted to the judgment of this Tribunal

in Mahendra C. Shah Vs Bank of Baroda in CA(AT)(Ins)No. 2266 of 2024

in which it has been held that if Applicant does not approach the Courts with

clean hands by making false averments, the application is liable to be

9 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 dismissed. Asserting further that delay has been occasioned by procedural

negligence on the part of the Applicant, it is contended by the Respondents that

the delay does not deserve any leniency. Reliance has been placed on a catena

of judgment of this Tribunal, which have already been referred to in the

preceding paragraphs, to contend that if any party fails to demonstrate

sufficient cause for the delay, then the delay may not be condoned.

11. Per contra, the Applicant has contended that the delay in refiling was not

intentional since the Applicant and his Counsel had taken all possible efforts

in serious earnestness to cure the defects and therefore in the interest of

justice, the refiling delay condonation may be allowed. In support of this plea,

reliance was placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in V.R. Ashok Rao & Ors.

Vs TDT Copper Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 780 of 2022 wherein it has been held

that delay in refiling is condonable upon the presentation of sufficient and/or

reasonable cause. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in CA Ramachandra Dallaram Choudhary Vs Adani

Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5106 of 2023

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the causes cited for condonation

of delay should have been construed liberally since interest of justice is better

served if a lis is decided on a contested hearing.

12. Coming to the sequence of steps taken by the Applicant leading to the

filing of present Company Appeal No. 419 of 2025, we notice that the present

appeal has been filed by the Applicant to challenge the order of the Adjudicating

Authority for rejecting their Intervention application No. 05 of 2024 in Company

10 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 Petition No. 27 of 2019 which intervention application was dismissed on

02.09.2024 as infructuous. The Adjudicating Authority held the intervention

application infructuous on the ground that IA No. 3781 of 2023 in the said

Company Petition No. 27 of 2019 had been decided and disposed of by the

Adjudicating Authority on 06.08.2024. As the Intervention application of the

Applicant had been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority without the

Applicant having got an opportunity to be heard, the Applicant chose to file IA

No. 7696 of 2024 in Company Appeal No. 1776 and 1777 of 2024 impugning

the order of 06.08.2024. In the meantime, the order of the Adjudicating

Authority dated 02.09.2024 rejecting the intervention application No. 05 of

2024 had come to be uploaded on 22.09.2024 following which the Applicant

proceeded to file the present Company Appeal No. 419 of 2025. IA No. 7696 of

2024 filed by the Applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2025 by this

Tribunal with liberty to pursue their appeal against the order of the

Adjudicating Authority dismissing their intervention application on

02.09.2024. The relevant excerpts of the order of this Tribunal of 30.01.2025

is as extracted hereunder:

"6. Mr. Sumit Khanna, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has fairly stated that thought the appeal was filed on 17.10.2024 but it could not be listed earlier because there were objections raised by the registry from time to file. He has further submitted that now all the defects have been cured and the appeal has been re-filed which is under scrutiny for the listing before this court.

7. Since the applicant has already availed the remedy of appeal for pursuing Intervention Application No. 5 of 2024 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.09.2024 on the ground

11 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 that it has become infractuous, therefore, the present application, in our considered opinion, is not maintainable as the appellant cannot pursue two remedies at the same time.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of this application to pursue his appeal. Dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant is at liberty to pursue his appeal alleged to have been filed against the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in Application No. 5 of 2024."

13. Having noticed the sequence of events leading to the filing of this

Company Appeal before this Bench, we also take notice that it is an undisputed

fact that the Applicant had filed the appeal on 17.10.2024 on which the

Registry notified the defects on 23.10.2024. The Applicant thereafter refiled

their application on 29.10.2024 which fell within a period of seven days

stipulated under NCLAT Rules for curing the defects. There has been a

cumulative delay thereafter aggregating to 125 days in curing the defects, the

condonation of which is before us for our consideration.

14. It is the case of the Applicant that even if there was a delay of 125 days

in refiling the Appeal, a liberal approach should be taken in the interest of

justice especially because there is sufficient cause and bonafide reasons to

explain the delay. We have already noticed that the Applicant has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dallaram Choudhary judgement supra

and that of this Tribunal in Ashok Rao judgement supra to contend that delay

in refiling is condonable if there was reasonable cause to do so. We have no

quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in Ashok Rao judgment supra

which has been relied upon by the Applicant to contend that if sufficient cause

12 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 is shown, condonation delay in refiling ought to be allowed. We also entirely

agree with the finding returned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dallaram

Choudhary judgment supra that a liberal approach should be taken in dealing

with refiling delays. But we also hasten to add that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in paragraph 14 of the said order has clearly stated that their decision in this

judgment is not to be treated as a judicial precedent. Condonation of refiling

delay is to be decided on the fact and circumstances of each case and the

Tribunal is expected to satisfy itself that there were special facts and

circumstances which warrant condonation of the delay.

15. Thus, for reasons of fairness and equity and to uphold the integrity of

judicial process, we need to apply our mind without being pedantic as to

whether the condonation of delay in refiling in the present factual matrix is

sufficient and justifiable for condonation.

16. This brings us to one of the prime reasons offered by the Applicant to

justify the delay in refiling. It is submitted that the rectification process of

defects got mired in delays because of certain personal difficulty suffered by the

drafting counsel owing to the ill health, hospitalization and passing away of his

grandmother which necessitated his travel to another city thus keeping him

away from attending to the defects. The counsel of the Applicant had to invest

time and energy to take care of the medical needs of the ailing grand-mother

besides time spent in the rituals/ceremonies following her death. Hence, delay

on this account needs to be construed liberally. Even though no supportive

medical evidence has been given to substantiate the illness/hospitalization of

13 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 the deceased grand-mother, we fully sympathise with this sad turn of events

and unhesitatingly accept that delay caused on this ground must be viewed

leniently and condoned.

17. Another ground cited is that the drafting counsel had to undertake travel

to other cities during this period for handling other litigative proceedings.

However, we do not find any cogent basis to condone the delay on this ground

that the counsel of the Applicant was engaged in the drafting and filing of other

matters and therefore could not attend to removing the defects in the present

application leading to delay in filing the appeal. We cannot be unmindful of the

fact that when the matter was already delayed on account of the medical

grounds stated above, the drafting counsel ought to have devoted priority

attention to curing defects of the present appeal. It is the contention of the

Respondents that the ground of personal difficulty of one counsel being the

cause for delay in refiling is devoid of substance in this case since the

Vakalatnama on behalf of the Applicant had been signed by multiple advocates.

The Applicant always had the opportunity to invoke the co-operation of other

advocates since there were other advocates also who had signed the

Vakalatnama on behalf of the Applicant. When so many advocates were already

engaged by the Applicant, there is no sufficient justification to attribute the

delay to personal difficulty being faced by one counsel. The angle of personal

difficulty of the counsel espoused by the Applicant fails to impress us. We are

inclined to agree with the Respondents that the personal difficulty of one

drafting counsel cannot be a credible ground for delay in refiling.

14 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025

18. Yet another reason attributed for the delay was "technical issue" in the

marking of defects by the Registry. We notice that this "technical issue" was

not fleshed out in details in the initial application for condonation of delay in

refiling but done subsequently in the Additional Affidavit. It is the case of the

Applicant that substantial defects came to be notified by the Registry for the

first time only on 16.11.2024. However, each time the defects were cured, the

subsequent defect sheets shared by the Registry continued to reflect the earlier

defects. Some of these defects related to orientation of pages, payment details

and proof of payment, caveat clearance, clarification on numbering of IAs

besides declaration and verification as well as length of synopsis and list of

dates etc. Reference also been made to some purported misunderstanding

arising out of contradictory directions given by Registry officials on the manner

and modalities of filing of the Power of Attorney. It has also been stated that

when the defects in the Power of Attorney were cured, it led to consequential

renumbering of the entire Appeal Book and repagination which consumed

considerable time. It has been contended that the counsel for the Applicant had

all along been diligent in his efforts to cure the defects which was finally cured

on 04.03.2025. Hence, in view of the fact that the Counsel had made genuine

efforts to redress the defects, the delay on their part was neither intentional

nor deliberate and hence deserves to be exonerated.

19. When we look at the material placed on record, we notice that the claim

of the Applicant that the Registry had been repeatedly pointing out the same

defects wrongly is unsubstantiated since the Applicant has failed to adduce any

15 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025 proof to show that it had approached the Registry seeking their clarification on

this point. Instead the repeated need to correct and refile the Appeal reflects

gross negligence and lack of diligence. Further the excuse taken that the

Registry official had created a misunderstanding over the validity of the Power

of Attorney having initially accepted and later objected to the same is also

frivolous and vague. In any case it is unjustified that two months' time was

consumed in submitting the correct documents relating to the Power of

Attorney as this is a simple exercise which would not entail requiring so much

time to remedy this defect. Even the consequential renumbering of files and

revision of the bookmarks etc. are not such a complex or intensive exercise

which could have consumed so much time. To file a wrong and defective

document not complying to procedural niceties and then expecting leniency to

be shown by the Registry is not a tenable argument. Litigants cannot take

advantage of their own negligence and expect the Registry not to point out

defects. Had the Applicant been more vigilant about protecting their interest,

they would have shown greater alertness in taking necessary corrective action

to fulfil the procedural compliances. Further we notice that there was no action

or negligible action taken by the Applicant after defects were pointed out on

08.01.2025. These defects were not cured until 04.03.2025. This clearly shows

that the litigant did not make bonafide, sincere and earnest efforts to correct

the defects. We are constrained to take the view that the defence raised by the

Applicant and his counsel to explain the delay appears to be feeble.

16 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025

20. We do not find that any unavoidable or exceptional circumstance had

come in the way of the Applicant which prevented them from refiling of their

application in a timely manner. There is a need to bring about finality and

certainty in litigation especially in IBC which is willy nilly a time-bound

exercise. We are therefore not impressed by these light-weight explanations

given to cover up the lack of diligence on the part of the Applicant and their

counsel in curing the defects in a timely manner. The Applicant has

unmistakeably failed to convincingly demonstrate sufficient cause for

condonation of 125 days delay. To our minds, the balance of convenience and

equity does not tilt in favour the Applicant.

21. Sufficient grounds not having been made out to justify the refiling delay

of 125 days, IA No. 1527 of 2025 is rejected. Consequent upon the dismissal of

Application for condonation of delay in refiling, the Memo of Appeal and other

accompanying IAs are also disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Place: New Delhi Date: 21.08.2025 Abdul/ Harleen

17 of 17 I.A. No. 1527 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 419 of 2025