Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Suresh Kumar Gupta vs Mr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Resolution ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal29 October 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal condones a delay in preferring a claim where the claimant's illness is the reason for the delay, and the Tribunal is satisfied with those reasons; the Resolution Professional is directed to consider the claim in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

-1-NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1080 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Suresh Kumar Gupta ...Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar Agrawal, ...Respondents RP of Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Mohd. Faris, Mohd. Yawar, Mohd. Sufiyan, Mohd. Ashraf, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Preeti Kashyap, Mr. Ankit Sharma, Mr. Sahil Chawla, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.10.2025: This appeal is directed challenging an order of the

Adjudicating Authority dated 28.05.2025 by which the prayer of the appellant

to condone a delay of 418 days in preferring a claim has been rejected.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a

69 year old homebuyer and is a cancer survivor and that it is because of his

illness he could not prefer his claim in time.

3. To a pointed query the counsel for the Respondent/RP has submitted

that there is prima facie material available to consider the claim of the

appellant.

4. We are satisfied with the reasons stated for the delay in preferring the

claim by the appellant and we accordingly condone the same. The RP is now -2-

required to consider the claim of the appellant in accordance with law. The

appeal is accordingly disposed of.

[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1080 of 2025

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