2024 (9) TMI 1424 - AT - IBC

Condonation of 185 days delay in refiling of the Appeal - HELD THAT - The delay in refiling can be condoned only if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is reasonable and justifiable cause for not refiling the appeal on time. On looking at the sequence of events, it is found that the Appeal was e-filed on 02.12.2023 and defects were intimated soon thereafter by the Registry on 11.12.2023. On perusal of the defect list pointed out by the Registry, most of the defects are minor in nature like lack of pagination, need of rescanning of certain pages of the appeal, correction of index etc. The correction of such defects was by no stretch of imagination of a time-consuming nature. The defects which were indicated by the Registry clearly fell in the routine category which were easily curable. The Applicant has also not indicated any circumstance beyond his control which warranted 185 days to clear the defects. Even the attribution of court vacations as a ground for delay does not cut ice since duration of court vacations are never that long. Clearly therefore, since the time of intimation of defects, the Applicant slept over the defects for nearly six months. No earnest efforts were made by the Applicant to correct the defects. It cannot be the unilateral prerogative of the Applicant to elect when it chooses to cure the defects to get the matter listed. This shows that the applicant was casual, callous and negligent in refiling the appeal - The Applicant cannot be given any indulgence keeping in view that the IBC proceedings have stringent timelines to be followed and the proceedings have to be concluded in a time-bound manner. Thus, sufficient ground has not been made out for condonation of 185 days delay in refiling of the Appeal. The refiling delay application is rejected - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in refiling the Appeal

Analysis:
The Applicant filed an application seeking condonation of a 185-day delay in refiling the Appeal, along with another application for a 15-day delay. The Applicant explained that the delay was due to ongoing court vacations, issues raised in previous proceedings, and the need to avoid conflicting judgments. The Respondent contested the delay explanation, arguing that the Applicant could have sought a deferral of the hearing or awaited decisions. The Tribunal outlined the sequence of events, highlighting the dismissal of a previous application and the lengthy delay in curing defects after intimation by the Registry.

The Tribunal carefully examined the grounds for delay presented by both parties. The Applicant's explanation included ongoing proceedings and court vacations, while the Respondent criticized the Applicant's actions as negligent and deliberate. The Respondent cited a previous judgment emphasizing the need for valid and unavoidable reasons for delay condonation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of reasonable and justifiable cause for delay condonation, noting that most defects were minor and easily curable. The Tribunal found the Applicant's inaction and negligence in addressing the defects unacceptable, especially given the strict timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds for condoning the 185-day delay in refiling the Appeal. As a result, the refiling delay application was rejected, rendering the other applications and the Memo of Appeal dismissed as well. The Tribunal emphasized the need for diligence and adherence to timelines in insolvency proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the delay condonation requests.