Condonation of delay in re-filing an appeal under the IBC requires a specific, evidence-backed demonstration of 'sufficient cause.' Routine administrative delays, general logistical pleas, and lack of a detailed chronology of diligence are insufficient to override the IBC's mandate for time-bound adjudication.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

1.I.A. No. 7489 of 2025 is an application filed by the Appellant praying for condonation of 112 days’ delay in re-filing of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1952 of 2025.

2. It is the submission of the Appellant that the delay occurred due to defects pointed out by the Registry in the appeal petition which was not only voluminous but contained documents which were illegible and required re- scanning, re-typing and re-compilation. The principal reason attributed for the delay was the impediments faced in the retrieval of certain original documents located in Mumbai which were not readily traceable. This resulted in 112 days delay in refiling despite diligent and bonafide efforts having been made by the Applicant in curing the defects. The relevant excerpts from the pleadings made by the Applicant are as reproduced below:

“3. It is respectfully submitted that after filing the Appeal, the Registry pointed out several defects requiring correction. The Appeal contains multiple voluminous annexures, including forensic audit-related material, minutes of CoC meetings, correspondence exchanged during CIRP, and subsequent IBBI disciplinary orders. Several of these documents were not fully legible and required rescanning, re-typing, and re-compilation to satisfy the Registry’s requirements.

4. The process of curing the defects required the Appellant to retrieve documents from internal archives and match them with the CIRP record, many of which were not readily available in legible form. Further, the original documents which were clear and required for the purpose of the present Appeal were largely situated in Mumbai, and due to the IA No. 1000 of 2021 being sub-judice for a long period of time, the original records were not easily traceable. This necessitated coordination between different internal departments of the Appellant, resulting in unavoidable administrative delay.

5. It is further submitted that the Registry’s objections required re- pagination, restructuring of the index, cross-referencing of annexures, and preparation of typed copies of multi-page audit records and correspondence. The said process took considerable time despite diligent efforts on the part of the Appellant.”

3. Notice was issued by this Tribunal on 23.12.2025 in respect of the present I.A. and the Respondent granted time to file reply to the Application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing. The order reads as under:

“…….Notice be issued to the respondents in the amended memo of parties in I.A. No. 7489 of 2025 praying for condonation of delay of 112 days in re-filing of the appeal. Reply be filed within three weeks. List on 03rd February, 2026.”

4. Pursuant thereto, reply has been filed by the Respondent opposing the Application for condonation of delay in re-filing. Reply has been filed by the Respondent to the refiling delay condonation application of the Applicant. In the reply, the Respondent has opposed the grounds of condonation cited by the Applicant by holding them to be bald and vague assertions and submitted as below:

3. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has reiterated in a catena of judgements that delay in re-filing of the memo of appeal can only be condoned if it is sufficiently explained. However, in the present case the Appellant neither has suffi