A delay of 198 days in refiling an appeal under the IBC was not condoned as the company failed to provide sufficient cause, showing lack of diligence and a pattern of non-prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 6, 9 and 61 - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 - Rule 22(2) - Application for condonation of delay in refiling - Maintainability - Limitation period of 30 days for filing appeal, extendable by 15 days - Delay of 198 days in refiling after initial filing within limitation - To condone delay, ‘sufficient cause’ must be shown - Explanation that Authorised Signatory was unavailable is vague and insufficient for a company; procedural delays in Registry and repeated defects not cured despite multiple reminders indicate lack of due diligence and lack of bona fides - Dismissal of appeal on ground of delay. (Paras 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)

(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61 - Appeal - Strict time-bound nature of Code - Delays in refiling to be viewed strictly, particularly where delay is long and continuous - The objective of speedy resolution under the Code must not be defeated by condoning unexplained delays caused by negligence and inaction. (Paras 28, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from an order dated 03.02.2025 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench, which dismissed a petition filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for non-payment of transportation and logistics charges. The petition had been pending from 2019. The appellant filed the appeal on 18.03.2025, which was within the extended condonable period of 15 days beyond the 30-day limitation. However, the appeal was found defective by the Registry, and the appellant took 198 days to cure the defects and re-file. The appellant attributed the delay to the unavailability of its Authorised Signatory until 13.04.2025 and to multiple rounds of procedural scrutiny by the Registry.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay of 198 days in refiling was not properly explained and did not warrant condonation. The explanation that the Authorised Signatory was unavailable was held to be vague and insufficient, as a company can act through multiple individuals. The appellant’s failure to cure repetitive defects, despite repeated notices from the Registry over a period of more than three and a half months, demonstrated a lack of due diligence and seriousness. The court also noted the appellant’s consistent pattern of non-prosecution before the NCLT. The court emphasised that IBC is a time-bound law and condoning such prolonged delay without proper justification would defeat the objective of speedy resolution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the delay of 198 days in refiling the appeal had been properly explained, and whether such delay deserved to be condoned in law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay must be shown; a vague and unexplained explanation, particularly where a company could have acted through other authorised representatives, does not constitute sufficient cause. Repeated failure to cure defects despite several notices indicates negligence, which cannot be condoned. The strict time-bound nature of the IBC must be upheld. Result : Application for condonation of delay rejected. Appeal dismissed as time-barred. Pending I.As closed. No order as to costs. (Para 36)

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI I.A. No. 6569, 6639 & 6641 of 2025 in (Arising against the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench in TP No. 157 of 2019 in CP (IB) No.

535 of 2019].

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM LOGISTICS LIMITED CIN: U63002DL1999PLC101942 Having its registered address at:

130, Transport Centre, Ring Road, Punjab Bagh, New Delhi- 110035 …Appellant Versus BAKUL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, CIN: U27310MP1999PTC013323 Having its registered address at: 2B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Road, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh- 45500 …Respondent Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Subhash Sharma, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates.

For Respondent: PCS Pratik Tripathi.

O R D E R

(06^th May, 2026)

INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

1. The present appeal has arisen from the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench (Adjudicating Authority) in TP No. 157 of 2019 [CP(IB) No. 535 of 2019], whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred as ‘Code’) by Om Logistics Limited- Appellant/ Operational Creditor, against Bakul Casting Private Limited- Respondent/Corporate Debtor, was dismissed on the ground that the Applicant had failed to prove the existence of operational debt and the occurrence of default. The Appellant had sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent on account of unpaid transportation and logistics charges arising from long-standing commercial transactions between the parties.

2. The Appellant submits that the impugned order failed to consider that the operational debt which was duly acknowledged by Respondent through email communications dated 06.12.2018 and pursuant to which a sum of Rs.60,000/- was processed. No reply was ever given by Respondent to the statutory demand notice dated 07.05.2019 issued under Section 8 of the IBC, and that all invoices had been duly received and acknowledged by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor without any pre-existing dispute. Aggrieved by the rejection of its Section 9 petition despite alleging a clear operational debt of Rs.10,52,127/- comprising principal amount of Rs.7,64,192/- and interest of Rs.2,87,935/-, Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 61 of the Code seeking setting aside of the impugned order and initiation of CIRP against Respondent.

3. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 13 days in filing of the appeal and a refiling delay of 198 days for which the Appellant filed an I.A.

6569 of 2025. On 09.12.2025 this Tribunal passed the following order:-

4. On 12.01.2026, notice was issued on refiling delay condonation application to the respondent. After completion of pleadings this Tribunal passed the following order on 08.04.2026:-

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

08.04.2026: I.A. No. 6569, 6639, 6641 of 2025 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Pratik Tripathi, PCS for the Respondent.

Order reserved in the Application for condonation of delay in refiling the Appeal, condonation of delay in filing the Appeal as well as the Application for Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order.

Facts of the Case

5. The relevant facts, limited to those necessary for deciding the issue of limitation and delay, are set out chronologically as under:

i. Om Logistics Limited/Appellant, a company engaged in providing transportation and logistics services, had been rendering such services to Bakul Casting Private Limited/Respondent, a manufacturing company dealing in steel and allied products, in the course of their commercial dealings.

ii. On account of alleged non-payment of dues arising from such services, Appellant, claiming to be an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 591

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALAshok Bhushan (Chairperson) , Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical)) ,Om Logistics Limited – AppellantVersusBAKUL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent6569/ND/2025 IA

A delay of 198 days in refiling an appeal under the IBC was not condoned as the company failed to provide sufficient cause, showing lack of diligence and a pattern of non-prosecution.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) , Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical)) ,
Om Logistics Limited – Appellant
Versus
BAKUL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
6569/ND/2025 IA