NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Dismisses Appeal Due to Delay in Re-filing. Delay of 198 Days in Re-filing Not Justified as Appellant Failed to Show Sufficient Cause.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order dated 03.02.2025 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, which dismissed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by Om Logistics Limited against Bakul Casting Private Limited. The Appellant claimed unpaid transportation and logistics charges amounting to Rs. 10,52,127. The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to prove the existence of operational debt and default. The Appellant filed the appeal on 18.03.2025, 43 days after the impugned order, citing a delay of 13 days in initial filing and an additional 198 days in re-filing due to defects pointed out by the Registry. The Respondent contested the delay, arguing that it was excessive and indicative of negligence. The Appellant's counsel argued that the delay was procedural and due to the unavailability of the Authorized Signatory. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's explanations were vague and insufficient, emphasizing that a company should not rely on a single individual for its operations. The court found that the Appellant's conduct reflected a lack of seriousness and diligence in pursuing the matter, with multiple opportunities for rectification ignored. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the delay was not sufficiently explained and rejected the application for condonation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Condonation of Delay - Delay in Re-filing - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 - The Appellant's delay of 198 days in re-filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained, reflecting negligence and lack of diligence. The court emphasized that the delay was excessive and not justified, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation and dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 27-36)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay of 198 days in re-filing the appeal has been properly explained and deserves to be condoned.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Section 9
  • Section 61
  • Limitation period
  • Condonation of delay
  • Operational debt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 82

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025

2026-05-06

Justice Ashok Bhushan, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Subhash Sharma, Mr. Manish Kumar, PCS Pratik Tripathi

OM LOGISTICS LIMITED

BAKUL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order and initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Filing Reason

Alleged non-payment of dues arising from transportation and logistics services.

Previous Decisions

The application under Section 9 was dismissed for failure to prove operational debt and default.

Issues

Whether the delay of 198 days in re-filing the appeal has been properly explained Whether such delay deserves to be condoned

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that delay was due to personal exigency and procedural issues Respondent contended that the delay was excessive and indicative of negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Delay can only be condoned when sufficient cause is shown; negligence or lack of bona fides cannot justify prolonged delays.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant's delay of 198 days in re-filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained. The reasons for non-availability of authorised signatory have not been explained at all in the application.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed on 18.03.2025 after the impugned order dated 03.02.2025, with initial filing delay of 13 days and subsequent re-filing delay of 198 days.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 9, Section 61
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal by Aided School Against Eviction from Natham Land for Unauthorized Commercial Use. Court Holds That Natham Land Reserved for Residential Purposes Cannot Be Occupied for Running School, Upholds Lease Arrears Demand a...
Related Judgement
High Court Rajasthan High Court Reviews Writ Petition Challenging GST Circular on Annuity Payments for Road Access and Recovery Order. Petitioner contended that Circular No.150/6/2021 could not override statutory exemption Notification No.12/2017 Entry 23A and ...