The Regional Provident Fund ... vs Mr. Rajendra Jain Resolution ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 212 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal held that an application for condonation of a 317-day delay in refiling an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be supported by a satisfactory explanation covering the whole period of delay, and that general and unparticularised explanations of procedural and health difficulties do not suffice; accordingly, where such an explanation is absent, the application for condonation is rejected and the appeal, as a consequence, is rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
hNATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 212 of 2026 & I.A. No. 684, 775 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II (Legal), ...Appellant(s) Regional Office Surat, Employees Provident Fund Organization Versus
Rajendra Jain Resolution Professional of Kimaya ...Respondent(s) Industries Pvt. Ltd. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Kumar Dey, Advocate
For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.04.2026 I.A. No. 684 of 2026 This is an Application praying for
condonation of 317 day delay in refiling the Appeal. The only reason which
appears in the Application which has been taken are in Paragraph 5, 6 and 7,
which are as follows :-
"5. That upon receiving the information regarding the defects further time was consumed in the process of informing the same to the office of the appellant and thereafter in communicating the same to the counsel for rectifying the defects in the appeal, approving, and signing of the by the appellant.
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 operated. After that operation, counsel was only involved in limited matters. Hence, refiling could not be completed within the limitation period of 7 days.
7. That after recovery it took some time for the counsel to put everything in place as office was not synchronised. It took some time to arrange the document and again start the process."
2. We are of the view that no satisfactory reason has been given explaining
refiling delay of 317 days. The explanation which are sought to be given in
Paragraph 5, 6 & 7 are general and is not sufficient to condone the refiling
delay of 317 days.
3. The Appeal has been filed arising out the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process and there has to be satisfactory explanation for delay of
317 days.
4. The Application for condonation of delay in refiling the Appeal is
rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected.
5. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that liquidation proceeding has
already commenced. It shall be open for the Appellant to take such steps, as
available in law. We need not make any observation with regard to said
proceeding in the present Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] 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