NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 in IN THE MATTER OF:

Rakshit Ashwinbhai Patel & Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus Vinod Tarachand Agrawal RP of Jay Formulation Ltd. …Respondent(s)

Present:

For Applicant : Mr. Arjun Sheth, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Karan Valecha, Advocate for RP.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present application I.A. No. 5930 of 2025 is an application filed by the Applicant praying for condonation of 108 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2025.

2. Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2025 and the Respondent was allowed three weeks’ time to file their reply.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the though the refiling delay was for 108 days, this delay was caused by genuine and bonafide reasons and was not intentional or deliberate. It was submitted that time was consumed since the Advocate on Record (“AOR” in short) and his clerical staff were not co-located thereby requiring time in coordination. Admitting that the Registry of NCLAT has raised defects in the month of May, 2025, this could not be attended since the AOR was travelling abroad in view of the court vacations in Ahmedabad during that month. Thereafter, as the NCLAT Registry was closed in the month of June, this also came in the way of curing the defects on time. Further, since the wife of the Applicant was suffering from medical hardships, that was yet another factor causing the delay. However, thereafter the defects were cured on 13.08.2025 and the case refiled before this Registry. When defects were pointed out again by the Registry on 14.08.2025, the same was rectified and matter refiled on 27.08.2025. The Registry had again raised defects on 01.09.2025 which was promptly redressed and refiled on 19.09.2025. It was further submitted that no further defects were raised and the NCLAT Registry had sent an e-mail dated 07.10.2025 in which it was clearly mentioned that the Company Appeal Petition had been marked as defect free. This clearly demonstrates that the Applicant had always been diligent in correcting the defects raised by the Registry within a reasonable time. Elaborating the reasons for delay further, it was stated that the time taken in the curing of defects in the present matter was occasioned by the fact that the Registry had directed the Applicant to type out more than 3000 pages of invoices which formed part of the records before the Adjudicating Authority. It was mentioned that this fact was also adverted to in their affidavit for refiling delay condonation placed before this Tribunal.

4. Per contra, it is the contention of the Respondent that the contention of the Applicant that the appeal is defect free is incorrect and that it is still listed with defects. It was also emphasised that the delay of 108 days was not only unduly long but the reasons given for delay did not justify this protracted delay. It was further pointed out that in a similar matter of seeking condonation of 104 days delay in refiling where similar grounds for delay was given, the delay condonation was not permitted by this Tribunal in Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs Ritu Rastogi, RP and Ors. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 2131 of 2024. It was further added that since IBC framework requires time-bound closure, this appeal which has been filed without sound reasons, the same may not be entertained.

5. We have heard both parties and seen the material on record carefully.

6. We have noticed the grounds which have been cited by the Applicant to explain the reasons for delay in refiling thereafter. We notice that the Appeal Petition had been filed within the statutorily permissible period but there has been delay of 108 days in refiling thereafter. The period of delay in refiling is reasonably long and hence it is necessary for us to assess the weight of the explanations offered to