The NCLAT delay condonation ruling underscores the importance of procedural diligence in insolvency proceedings. The Principal Bench in New Delhi dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 105-day delay in re-filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The tribunal held that geographical distance and routine excuses cannot justify protracted lapses, reinforcing the IBC’s emphasis on time-bound resolution.
📜 Case Background
- Case: Komal Rakshit Patel v. Vinod Tarachand Agrawal (RP of Jay Formulation Ltd. & Ors.)
- Appeal: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1533 of 2025
- Delay: 105 days in re-filing after defects were flagged
- Application: I.A. No. 5929 of 2025 seeking condonation
The appellant cited coordination challenges between counsel in different cities, vacations, and medical issues. The Resolution Professional opposed, arguing that such reasons were routine and insufficient.
🧑⚖️ NCLAT’s Observations
- Geographical distance cannot justify delay in the digital era.
- Medical condition of the appellant was partially accepted, but clerk’s illness was unsubstantiated.
- Vacations and travel are routine and not “sufficient cause.”
- Strict timelines under Section 61 IBC and Rule 31 of NCLAT Rules must be respected.
💬 Vakilify Insight
This ruling highlights the IBC’s uncompromising stance on efficiency. Procedural lapses, even if genuine, must be backed by strong evidence. For practitioners, it signals the need for robust filing systems and digital workflows to avoid rejection of appeals.
🔗 Related Reading and Links
- 👉 Outbound link: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- 👉 Vakilify Blog: Maintenance Denied to Wife – CrPC Section 125
