9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1105 - AT - IBCCondonation of delay of 233 days in refiling the appeal by the appellant - delay caised due to old age and health issues - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT - The Appeal being filed on 22.02.2024 through e-filing which was within the 30 days from the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 was filed within limitation period and there is no delay in filing of the Appeal. However it is to be noted that the defects have to be cured within a period of 7 days as per Rule 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016. But in this case it has not been done repeatedly and the cumulative delay in refiling is 233 days. Furthermore same defects were being notified again and again and the Appellant has allowed the Appeal to remain defective for a very long time with the Registry. The Appellant has been callous in not correcting the defects pointed out by the NCLAT registry in a timely manner. The grounds taken by the Appellant giving health reasons of the Appellant do not correlate with the reality in the present case. The grounds taken by the Appellant giving health reasons of the Appellant do not correlate with the reality in the present case. It is not clear as to why the Appellant was not pursuing his case for curing of the defects in a timely manner. In case if the defects were not curable the Appellant could have mentioned it before this Tribunal to take up the Appeal with defects which was not done in this case. The explanation provided in the Additional Affidavit also doesn t inspire much confidence. The reasons as provided are not sufficient to condone the delay in refiling. Conclusion - As there is no sufficient cause explained by the Appellant therefore the condonation of delay application is dismissed. The condonation of delay application is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was whether the delay of 233 days in refiling the appeal by the appellant should be condoned. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay, including the appellant's health issues and the unfamiliarity of the appellant's advocate with the NCLAT procedures. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The relevant procedural framework is provided by Rule 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, which mandates that defects in filing must be cured within seven days. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal noted that the appeal was initially filed within the prescribed 30-day period. However, the appellant failed to cure the defects within the stipulated seven days repeatedly, leading to a cumulative delay of 233 days. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural timelines to ensure the efficient administration of justice. Key Evidence and Findings The appellant cited health issues as a reason for the delay, claiming hospitalization and old age as contributing factors. Additionally, the appellant's advocate was unfamiliar with NCLAT procedures, which purportedly led to delays in curing defects. The Tribunal reviewed affidavits and explanations provided by the appellant, which detailed the timeline of defect notifications and the corresponding compliance dates. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, emphasizing that defects must be cured within seven days. Although the initial filing was timely, the repeated failure to cure defects within the required timeframe demonstrated a lack of diligence. The Tribunal found that the explanations provided did not justify the extensive delay in refiling. Treatment of Competing Arguments The respondent opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the appellant had not been diligent and that the delay was not justified. The respondent highlighted that the appellant's health issues were resolved in February, yet the appeal remained defective for months thereafter. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had been negligent in curing defects and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The reasons cited, including health issues and procedural unfamiliarity, were deemed insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "We find that the Appellant has been callous in not correcting the defects pointed out by the NCLAT registry in a timely manner. The grounds taken by the Appellant giving health reasons of the Appellant do not correlate with the reality in the present case." Core Principles Established The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the necessity of providing a compelling justification for any delays in legal proceedings. It reinforced that procedural rules are integral to the efficient functioning of the judicial system. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal determined that the appellant's explanations did not constitute sufficient cause for the delay in refiling. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed due to the failure to comply with procedural requirements.
|
