9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2023 with delay of 11 days. (11 days in filing the appeal has already been condoned by our order dated 04.03.2025). The applicant's case is that appeal was filed on 14.09.2023, and thereafter the defects were marked by the Registry on 22.09.2023. Time was taken to cure such defects, certain annexures were handwritten, hence they were required to be typed out. In the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, appellant in paragraphs 2, 5, 6 & 7, following has been pleaded: "2. The present Appeal has been filed against the Impugned Order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the Company Petition (IB) No. 4100/MB/2019. The Memo of Appeal was presented before this Tribunal on 141 h September, 2023. After the scrutiny of Memo of Appeal, the defects were intimated on 22nd September 2023. The Memo of Appeal was re-fi1ed on 1st March, 2024, after the delay of 154 days along with the Interlocutory Application No. 1680 of2024 for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal under Rule 31 read with Rule 11, 14 and 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 ('NCLAT Rules' herein). 5. The Applicant submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A-21 to the Appeal and the same forms part of the Section 7 application filed before the Hon'ble NCLT. Clear and visible copies of the same were already part of the lower court record, there was no need to fetch fresh copies. 2. Para 6 : In order to rectify the defect number 7 of the defect list, for removing the old marked 'Exhibit/Annexures' consumer loads of time firstly, in fetching the original one and getting some of them typed, which again was the time consuming as the authorised translator, unfortunately died, due to the sudden attack in the month of October 2023, which further created difficulty to get those documents typed again. This is a bogus ground as no typed copies of any of the annexures have been filed with the Appeal. Further, the claimed death of an unnamed authorised translator is hardly a ground for the condonation of a delay of 5.5 months. There are many translators/typists in the city and nothing barred the Appellants from approaching them. 3. Para 7 : The Applicant submits that the authorised representative of all the eight corporate debtors faced difficulty in fetching the Affidavit of all eight appellants, despite the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although it was filed in the Memo itself but were still again asked to check and amend them in the memo properly. 6.5 The petitioner states further that in defect number 7- 'Affidavit supporting memorandum of appeal and IAs on behalf of all appellants are not filed, herein, the registry was not convinced and the petitioner was asked to file the supporting affidavit of each of the Appellants which caused further delay. 6.6 The petitioner states and submit that after getting notified of the above mentioned defects, they were cured and went back for re-file the same on 5th October 2023, however the staff was changed and the new person pointed out the issue with respect to the "affidavit supporting Memo of Appeal and IAs on behalf of all appellant" and crucially, asked that as per the defect number 18- "Note: Please check and ensure that all details are uploaded with correct indexing with original colour scanned documents such as, signature, affidavit attestation stamp etc.", in order to satisfy the clarity and font it was asked to get the pages typed, like Page No. 66 to 68, 70, 72, 73, 76, 87 to 91, 94 to 105, etc.. Thereby, such pages were given to the authorised typist so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following : "8.(iv) ...The classic example is difference in approach of courts to application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal after rectification of defects". 8. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of submission has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1524/2024, 'Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd.' Vs 'Vaibhav Khanelwals & Anr.', where this Tribunal rejected application for refiling delay for condonation of 121 days. 9. 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. It is useful to notice paragraph 8 of the judgment of this Tribunal in 'Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra), where this Court laid down as follows: " 8. At the outset, we would like to point out that it is well recognised that while dealing with refiling delay condonation applications, a liberal approach is expected to be normally taken and as long as sufficient cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
