Walchandnagar Industries Ltd vs Swaraj India Agro Ltd

I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026

[Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in C.P. (IB) No. 530 of 2018]

IN THE MATTER OF:

WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED Having its registered office at 3, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, ·Mumbai 400 034, Maharashtra Email: sanchit.madge@walchand.com ...Appellant(s)

Versus

SWARAJ INDIA AGRO LTD. Having its registered office at Plot Nimbhore, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara, Maharashtra 415 523 Email: ranjeetsingh@swarajindia.co.in rhnswaraj@gmail.com latifswaraj@gmail.com ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. K. Datta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Niharika Sharma, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Ms. Prachi Wazalwar, Ms. Shalini Basu, Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Mr. Sameer Mishra, Mr. S. Mishra, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present application I.A No. 991 of 2026 is an application praying

for condonation of 193 days delay in refiling of CA (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing on 16.02.2026, the Ld. Sr.

Counsel for the Appellant sought liberty to file an additional affidavit in

support of the application praying for condonation of refiling delay.

Page 1 of 7 I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026

3. In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Tribunal, the Applicant has

filed an additional affidavit giving explanation for delay and outlined the dates

on which defects were notified and removed which is as reproduced below:-

Basis the above tabular chart, it was claimed that keeping in mind that

deduction of 7 days' period is permissible for removal at the end of each round

of defects being removed, the total delay works out to 153 days and not 193

days.

4. It was further pointed out that the Applicant had corrected the first

round of defects within the period of seven days and hence there was no delay

as such. It was only when the second round of defects were pointed out on

01.08.2025 that a period of 109 days got consumed in curing the defects. The

Registry had pointed out in their second notice of defects at serial no. 12 for

filing of true typed copies of hand written pages and at serial no. 13 pointed

out that documents filed in the Hindi language were required to be

accompanied by English translation. The defects at serial no. 12 and 13 as

conveyed by NCLAT Registry is as reproduced below:-

"12. Page no 1133, 1141, 1164,... etc and many more pages are filed handwritten. File its true typed copies..

13. Page no 1142, 1148, 1149, ... etc and many more are filed in Hindi language. File its true translated typed copies in English language accompanied with original copies.."

Page 2 of 7

I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026

5. Elucidating the fact that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in

curing the second notice of defects, it was submitted that genuine, sincere

and timely endeavours were made by the Applicant to remedy the defects at

serial no. 12. It was stated that NCLAT Registry had not specifically indicated

the handwritten pages which required to be substituted by typed copies but

mentioned only three pages. Each time the typed copies were submitted, the

Registry indicated more copies to be typed out and as this recurred, it became

time consuming and added to the delay. It was also added that the Applicant

had to procure legible copies from their old records to prepare true typed

copies which was a protracted process as it entailed obtaining of source

documents, verbatim typing followed by proof-reading. It was further added

that the process of reconstruction of the non-digitised old records took a lot

of time since the original project manager who was the primary custodian of

these documents and had full knowledge of the transactions of the Applicant

had also retired from the rolls of the Applicant which compounded the delay.

Similarly, in the case of defects pointed out at serial no. 13 which required

filing of translated copies of the vernacular documents in English, the Registry

had again not exactly specified the pages which required translation but had

only indicated three pages. Each time the defect was cured by the Applicant,

the Registry pointed out the further pages which required to be translated

from vernacular language to English. Given the voluminous nature of

documents covered by serial nos. 12 and 13 which had to be either typed

and/or translated, the whole process took a lot of time leading to delay.

Further, the filing clerk also had to travel several times to Delhi to cure the

defects to the satisfaction of the Registry. However, once the second notice of

Page 3 of 7 I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026 defects got cured, the defects pointed out in the third and fourth round of

notices had been expeditiously cured within a reasonable period of time.

6. The above submissions of the Applicant were vehemently contested by

the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stating that the delay of 193 days in

refiling delay was inordinately long. The grounds cited to explain the refiling

delay were mechanical and bald and lacked foundational basis. The averment

made by the Applicant that the delay was bonafide and not intentional was

bereft of substance. Perusal of the list of defects placed by the Applicant

themselves at page 17 of their additional affidavit would show that most of

the defects were routine, procedural defects such as unsigned master index,

mistakes in pagination, blanks in pages, formatting errors, lack of payment

proof, power of attorney issues etc. and had the Applicant been diligent these

could have all been cured in one-go without avoidable delay. Furthermore,

the explanation for delay offered by the Applicant with respect to translation

of vernacular documents and typing out of hand-written documents on

extraneous factors like absence of old employees familiar with the documents

was a specious plea as these documents had always remained in possession

of the Applicant and hence locating these documents could not have been

such a big hurdle so as to take more than 100 days to remedy. Contention

was raised by the Respondent that when the Applicant had e-filed the appeal

after scanning the documents, the plea taken that the records were old and

non-digitised leading to delay in record reconstruction lacked credibility. It

was also contended that the Applicant has mischievously attempted to shift

the blame for their own inefficiency and failure to cure the defects on the

Registry. The persistence of defects despite repeated opportunities to cure the

defects is indicative of lack of bonafide efforts on the part of the Applicant. It

Page 4 of 7 I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026 was asserted that the delay was deliberate and formed a calculated strategy

since the Applicant was pursuing parallel arbitration proceedings arising out

of the same cause of action before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and

awaiting its outcome. The Applicant by merely making hollow assertion

unsupported by cogent reasons that the delay was unintentional or

procedural does not by itself constitute sufficient cause which demonstrate

diligent efforts had been taken by the Applicant to cure the defects within a

reasonable time.

7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the

record.

8. It is well settled that refiling delay condonation application deserves to

be handled in a liberal and lenient manner without being too pedantic. Be

that as it may, the Applicant cannot be rightfully absolved of their

responsibility to satisfy the Court by providing satisfactory and sufficient

explanation to justify the delay particularly so when the magnitude of delay

of 193 days is manifestly huge. Hence, what needs to be seen is whether the

Applicant has satisfactorily established sufficient, coherent and credible

defect-wise and date-wise explanation for the delay and if not, the

condonation of refiling delay application deserved to be rejected.

9. This brings us to the explanation offered by the Applicant in explaining

the major delay of 109 days pointed out by the Registry on 01.8.2025. The

reasons put forth by the Applicant justifying the delay was that the NCLAT

Registry did not specify with detailed particulars of the hand-written pages

which required to be typed or the documents which needed translation form

vernacular into English. When we look at the defects at Sl. No. 12 and 13, we

find that the Registry had suffixed the expansive word 'etc.' after mentioning

Page 5 of 7 I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026 three pages in the notice of defect. This clearly shows that the Registry had

clearly indicated that the defects with regard to documents at Sl. No. 12 and

13 were generic in nature and the pages indicated were only illustrative. It

was not necessary for the Registry to point out all the hand-written

documents which required to be typed out or list out all the

documents/records in vernacular language which had to be translated into

English. The Applicant having filed the appeal petition themselves were fully

aware of the hand-written and vernacular-based documents which had been

submitted by them. Being aware of the documents/records, the Applicant

ought to have assumed the responsibility to cure the defects in a composite

and comprehensive manner rather than wait for the Registry to remind them

repeatedly of the documents which required to be typed out and translated.

Furthermore, the explanation for delay offered by the Applicant with respect

to translation of vernacular documents and typing out of hand-written

documents on the ground that the person who was the primary custodian of

the documents was no longer available was a frivolous ground since in their

own affidavit the Applicant has averred that the said employee had retired in

2020 while the present appeal has been filed in 2025. The contention of the

Applicant that the delay was 153 days and not 193 days is also not acceptable

as the Applicant has tried to artificially compress the duration of delay by

discounting the 7 days' time permitted for curing the defects from each round

of defect as and when they were cured. This methodology of computing the

period of delay is not correct. As long as the defects are not fully cured, the

period of 7 days' time allowed to correct the defects as and when pointed out

by the Registry cannot be precluded from the calculating the total period of

refiling delay. In our opinion, had the Applicant been more alert, careful and

Page 6 of 7 I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026 vigilant, they would not have been required to undergo the process of

correcting their defects five times. We are therefore of the considered view that

the delay was clearly not occasioned by factors which were beyond the control

of the Applicant but was a result of their inaction or deliberate non-action. It

goes without saying that such unwarranted delays on specious grounds as

have been articulated by the Applicant clearly runs counter to the timely

conclusion of the resolution process which is central to the IBC. The reasons

for delay do not inspire confidence in us.

10. We are therefore of the considered view that sufficient grounds have not

been made out for condonation of 193 days delay in refiling of the present

appeal. The refiling delay condonation application is rejected. The memo of

appeal is also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Date : 11.05.2026 Sheetal

Page 7 of 7 I.A. No. 991 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 291 of 2026