2023 (8) TMI 1432 - AT - Companies Law

Condonation of delay in refiling of the appeal - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - whether condonation has to be allowed only after assigning sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court? - HELD THAT - The answer to the above question is no longer res integra in view of the Five Judge Bench decision of this Tribunal rendered in V.R.Ashok Rao 2022 (9) TMI 219 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI in which one of the question was Whether the limitation prescribed for filing an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or Section 421 of the Companies act, 2013 shall also govern the period under which a defect in the Appeal is to be cured and this Appellate Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to condone the delay in refiling/re- presentation if it is beyond the limitation prescribed in Section 61 of the IBC or Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. - it was held by the Tribunal that The limitation prescribed in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Code or Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not govern the period taken in an appeal for removal of the defects in refiling/re-presentation. Even if, there is a delay in refiling/ re-presentation which is more than the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under section 61 of the Code and Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, the same can be condoned on sufficient justification. Thus, one thing is settled that in application for condonation of delay in refiling of appeal, the Applicant / Appellant has to give sufficient reason for not re-filing the appeal within the time prescribed - In the present case, the appellant has been totally casual in approaching this court time and again for the purpose of re-filing inasmuch as the defects have been shown for the first time on 01.02.2022 were not cured. It is added that one of the objection was with regard to the cause title namely, Cause title is defective in whole appeal paper book write, 2022 instead of 2021 . Even this was not corrected by the Appellant which speaks volumes about their act and conduct and disentitles them from seeking condonation of delay in the present application. There is no sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant for the purpose of condonation of delay in re-filing of the appeal. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case pertain to the re-filing of an appeal due to defects pointed out by the Registry, the delay in re-filing the appeal, and the application for condonation of delay.

Re-filing of Appeal:
The appeal was directed against an order passed by the Competition Commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002. The appeal was initially filed on 24.01.2022 and subsequently re-filed on multiple occasions due to defects pointed out by the Registry. Despite being intimated about the defects, the Appellant failed to cure them within the stipulated time frame, leading to delays in re-filing.

Delay in Re-filing:
The Registrar of the Tribunal noted a significant delay of 223 days in re-filing the appeal. The Appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing unforeseeable circumstances such as one of their counsels being in judicial custody and the need to address various defects. However, the Registrar found the delay to be unjustified and referred the matter to the bench for appropriate orders.

Application for Condonation of Delay:
The Appellant filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay in re-filing the appeal. They highlighted the challenges faced, including the arrest of one of their counsels and subsequent difficulties in meeting the re-filing deadline. The Respondent contested this application, arguing that the delay was inexcusable and that the Appellant had been negligent in addressing the defects and re-filing the appeal promptly.

Decision and Ruling:
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the circumstances surrounding the delay in re-filing the appeal. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the Appellant to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Despite the explanations offered, the Tribunal found the Appellant's conduct to be casual and negligent, as they failed to address the defects promptly. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.

Separate Judgement:
A separate judgment was delivered by the Tribunal, dismissing the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissing the appeal due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay in re-filing.