166 Days Delay In Re-Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned In Absence Of Genuine And Plausible Explanation: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a delay of 166 in re-filing an appeal cannot be condoned in the absence of a plausible and genuine explanation offered for the same. Brief Facts The present application I.A. No.6903 of 2024 is an application praying for condonation of 166 days delay in refiling an appeal. When the Appeal came up for hearing on 04.11.2024, the Counsel for the Appellant sought liberty to file an additional affidavit in support of the application praying for condonation of refiling delay. In pursuance of this, an affidavit was filed stating the grounds on which delay is sought to be condoned. The applicant stated that the demise of the counsel's grandfather in Gorakhpur on 16.04.2024 had prevented the counsel from filing the appeal on time as he had to undertake multiple travels to Gorakhpur to complete attendant rituals. It was further submitted that the intervening vacation in June and shortage of staff was another reason leading to the delay in refiling and that the appeal petition underwent continuous revisions as the Registry pointed out defects four times which added to the delay. It was also argued the cumulative delay of 166 days was caused by genuine reasons. At no stage did the Applicant cause the delay deliberately or for any other extraneous consideration. Refuting the submissions, the respondent submitted that the delay of 166 days in refiling was inordinately long and the grounds of condonation of refiling delay as placed on the affidavit lacks a cogent basis. Lastly, it was submitted that the refiling delay was entirely on account of the casual approach of the Applicant coupled with negligence and lack of thoroughness in properly curing the defects. In the absence of sufficient and valid grounds, the refiling delay condonation application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. Observations: The tribunal observed that it was natural that re-filing a delay condonation application warrants a liberal and lenient treatment and is a matter which largely lies between the Court and the Applicant. Be that as it may, it held that when delay in refiling is unduly protracted, for condonation of the same, the Bench must be satisfied with the genuineness and plausibility of the explanation offered. It noted that coming to the first explanation which was bereavement in the family of the counsel and the need to perform attendant rituals, they were inclined to agree to the time lapse of a month as has been claimed by the Applicant to justify the delay. This period of one month admittedly came to an end in mid-May, at which time the Tribunal was fully operational. However, it observed that there seemed to have been total inertia and non-action on the part of the Applicant to take any steps towards removing the defects. Delay thereafter from June onwards has been conveniently attributed to the summer vacations of the court. It added that “this is a lame and hackneyed excuse which clearly has no legs to stand on since the Registry is always open and working even during vacation time. We are therefore not impressed with vacations being made the scapegoat to cover up the Applicant's lethargy in curing the defects.” The tribunal further said that another ground cited by the Applicant is that a lot of time got consumed as they had to repeatedly make corrections because of defects being pointed out by the Registry on four different occasions. It further observed that it was not convinced by this argument either as it only substantiates the contention of the Respondent that the Applicant was lackadaisical and negligent while making the corrections and removing the defects in a timely manner. Had the Applicant been more alert, careful and vigilant, they would not have been required to undergo the rigmarole of correcting defects four times. Accordingly, the present application was dismissed. Case Title: Anup Kumar Liquidator of Independent TV …Appellant Versus Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors. Case Number: I.A. No. 6903 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1913 of 2024 Judgment Date: 03/01/2025 For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Shankari Mishra, Ms. Jyoti Khurana, Advocates. For Respondent : Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Govind Sharma, Advocates for R-1. Click Here To Read/Download The Order

166 Days Delay In Re-Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned In Absence Of Genuine And Plausible Explanation: NCLAT

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags