ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

1.The present application I.A. No. 318 of 2026 is an application filed praying for condonation of 140 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 137 of 2026.

2. Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2026. Respondent No. 1 had accepted notice and was granted two weeks’ time to file reply and rejoinder, if any, was directed to be filed by the Appellant within one week thereafter.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that though the Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 2810 of 2021 in Company (IB) No. 2728/ND/2019 had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, defects were subsequently notified by this Registry on 01.08.2025 which required substantial rectification and compliance. It was contended that extensive defects were pointed out by the Registry which entailed procurement and filing of legible copies of voluminous annexures, restructuring and recompilation of records, re-pagination, cross-referencing of annexures and curing deficiencies pertaining to documents which were not readily available with the Applicant and therefore considerable time was consumed in collecting, arranging and compiling proper and legible copies of the relevant records. The delay was also occasioned by the fact that the Applicant had been suffering from prolonged health complications including stomach and liver ailments and as he was undergoing treatment at ILBS Hospital, Delhi, his movement remained restricted during the relevant period. Reliance was also placed on medical records pertaining to November and December 2024 relating to suspected thalassemia and allied ailments. It was further submitted that the Applicant had to attend to family obligations arising out of treatment of his sister-in-law’s mother who was undergoing breast cancer treatment and thereafter had to travel to the United Kingdom from 02.09.2025 till 08.10.2025 for unavoidable livelihood and professional reasons. It was additionally submitted that upon return from abroad, the Applicant suffered from severe back pain and recurring health complications which further delayed the process of curing the defects. Further the demise of the Applicant’s mother in April 2025 and need to perform the connected rituals by the Applicant was also highlighted. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that delay got compounded further as certain personal difficulties were also faced by the Counsel for the Applicant on account of hospitalization of a family member due to cardiac complications. According to the Applicant, despite continuous bonafide efforts having been undertaken for curing the defects and complying with the Registry objections, the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant and therefore deserved to be condoned in the interests of justice particularly when the appeal petition itself had been filed within limitation.

4. Vehemently opposing the grounds articulated by the Applicant in defence of the delay which had occurred in refiling, Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Applicant has failed to adduce sufficient and satisfactory grounds justifying the extraordinarily protracted delay of 140 days in refiling the Appeal. The conduct of the Applicant throughout this long span of 140 days demonstrates negligence, lack of diligence and casual prosecution of the appeal. The explanations furnished by the Applicant of his own alleged illness and that of his relatives, non-availability of documents, unavoidable foreign travel, family obligations and logistical inconvenience are not only vague, routine and generalised excuses but is unsupported by fool- proof documentary evidence. No continuous or date-wise explanation has been furnished explaining the entire period during which