NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Dismisses Appeal Due to Inordinate Delay in Refiling. Delay of 202 Days Remains Unexplained and Cannot Be Attributed to Counsel's Personal Circumstances.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Company Appeal (AT) No. 326 of 2026 was filed by the Liquidator of M/s Brown Packaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. challenging an order dated 08.12.2025 from the National Company Law Tribunal, which had partially allowed his application regarding remuneration. The Appellant contended that the remuneration approved was less than what was agreed upon in a meeting held on 23.10.2025, and that it violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules, 2020. The appeal was filed on 10.01.2026, but defects were noted by the Tribunal, and despite several notifications, the Appellant failed to rectify them, leading to a delay of 202 days in refiling. The Appellant filed an application for condonation of this delay, citing the medical issues of his counsel's mother as the reason for the inability to rectify the defects. The Tribunal analyzed the circumstances and concluded that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, as the counsel's personal issues could not be considered as a valid reason for the Appellant's failure to act. The Tribunal emphasized that the Liquidator, being knowledgeable about the proceedings, should have taken steps to rectify the defects independently. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the Company Appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Delay in Refiling - Condonation of Delay - NCLAT Rules, 2016, Rule 26 - The Appellant sought to condone a delay of 202 days in refiling the Company Appeal, attributing it to the medical circumstances of his counsel's mother. The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, emphasizing that the counsel's personal circumstances could not be attributed to the Appellant's inability to rectify defects, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay (Paras 12-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay of 202 days in refiling the Company Appeal could be condoned.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the Company Appeal (AT) No. 326 of 2026 was dismissed due to the inordinate and unexplained delay of 202 days in refiling.

Law Points

  • Liquidator's remuneration
  • Delay in refiling
  • Condonation of delay
  • NCLAT Rules
  • Professional ethics
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 214

Company Appeal (AT) No. 326 of 2026

2026-09-18

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Ms. Rushikanta Dash

RAJENDRA DEVIDAS PURANIK

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order regarding Liquidator's remuneration and delay in refiling.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to have the remuneration approved as per the fifth meeting and condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed to challenge the order reducing the Liquidator's remuneration.

Previous Decisions

The Tribunal had previously noted defects in the appeal which were not rectified.

Issues

Whether the delay of 202 days in refiling the Company Appeal could be condoned. Whether the personal circumstances of the counsel could justify the delay.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the delay was due to the medical issues of his counsel's mother. The Tribunal noted that the counsel's personal circumstances could not be attributed to the Appellant's failure to act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the delay in refiling was inordinate and unexplained, and the personal circumstances of the counsel could not be considered as a valid reason for the Appellant's failure to rectify defects.

Judgment Excerpts

The delay remains unexplained and this is inordinate too, the same does not deserve to be condoned. Counsel’s personal inability cannot be an inability of the Appellant to rectify the defects.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed on 10.01.2026, defects were noted on 16.01.2026, and the appeal was refiled on 28.05.2026. Further scrutiny revealed additional defects, leading to a delay of 202 days in refiling.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013:
  • NCLAT Rules, 2016: Rule 26
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Creditor's Full Decree, Clarifying 'Same Creditor' Requirement Under Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. Renewal of Promissory Note in Favour of Bank Controlled by Original Creditor Fails to Meet Identity Requirement Under Explan...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Insurance Dispute — Upholds Reimbursement of Medical Expenses. The court restored earlier orders for renewal of the insurance policy and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during the valid policy period.