9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 520 - AT - IBCCondonation of delay of 154 days in refiling the appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - The law with regard to condonation of refiling delay is well settled although the Courts have adopted a liberal approach while condoning the refiling delay but there has to be sufficient cause shown by the applicant for condoning the refiling delay. There are no incompetency of learned advocate on record in filing the additional affidavit in support of application for condonation of refiling delay. From the facts which has been noticed it is clear that present is a case where steps were taken by applicant for curing the defect. The fact that 8 appellants who have filed the appeal are not from one place. Two of the appellants are from Thane West State of Maharashtra and others are from Beawar State of Rajasthan. Conclusion - Sufficient cause has been shown in the application additional affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the refiling delay application. Refiling delay is condoned.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered by the Appellate Tribunal was whether the delay of 154 days in refiling the appeal should be condoned. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided by the appellants for the delay and evaluated whether these reasons constituted "sufficient cause" under the relevant legal framework. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The Tribunal considered the application for condonation of delay under Rule 31 read with Rules 11, 14, and 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. The legal framework requires that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delays. The Tribunal referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court judgment in 'Perymon Bhagbathy' Vs. 'Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.', which emphasized a more lenient approach to condonation of refiling delays compared to initial filing delays. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal interpreted the rules to require a liberal approach towards condoning refiling delays, provided there is a reasonable and justifiable cause. The Tribunal emphasized that the objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is time-bound resolution, and delays should not prejudice the interests of the parties involved. Key Evidence and Findings The appellants argued that the delay was due to logistical challenges faced by eight appellants operating businesses across the country. They cited difficulties in obtaining necessary documents, the death of an authorized translator, and additional defects notified by the registry after initial submissions. The respondents contested these claims, arguing that the reasons provided were insufficient and that the appellants had not demonstrated due diligence. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the legal principles of leniency in refiling delays to the facts presented. It considered the appellants' logistical challenges and the steps they took to rectify defects. The Tribunal found that the appellants had made efforts to comply with the procedural requirements, and the reasons provided were credible and reasonable under the circumstances. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal addressed the respondents' objections, including the claim that the appellants' reasons were fabricated and that the affidavit was inadmissible due to being filed by counsel. The Tribunal rejected these objections, finding no incompetency in the counsel swearing the affidavit and acknowledging the appellants' efforts to cure defects. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay in refiling the appeal. It found the reasons provided by the appellants to be credible and justified under the circumstances, warranting the condonation of the refiling delay. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning refiling delays, provided there is sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural delays should not undermine the objectives of the IBC, which aims for time-bound resolution of insolvency matters. Core Principles Established The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that refiling delays should be condoned if the applicant demonstrates reasonable and justifiable cause. It highlighted the importance of balancing procedural compliance with the substantive objectives of the IBC. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal determined that the appellants had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in refiling the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the refiling delay and scheduled the appeal for admission on 14th April 2025.
|
