9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent application I.A. No. 8821 of 2024 is an application filed by the Applicant praying for condonation of 139 days delay in refiling of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2362 of 2024. 2. Notice was issued in respect of the refiling delay condonation application by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2025 and the Respondent was allowed two weeks' time to file their reply and Applicant was allowed two weeks further time to file their rejoinder. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the refiling delay was caused by genuine and bonafide reasons as time was taken in obtaining the directions and the signature of the various Home-buyers who have filed the appeal collectively. Since the Applicants reside at different locatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent Appeal could not be taken within the stipulated period of seven days. 5. It is respectfully submitted that Appellant No. 2 Mr. Kanwar Pal was not available from 27.07.2024- 01.08.2024; Appellant No. 5 Mr. Suresh Kumar was not available from 25.07.2024 to 26.07.2024; 27.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 and again from 15.09.2024 to 21.09.2024; Appellant No. 6 Mr. Jitendra Kumar was not available from 31.08.2024 to 02.09.2024 and Appellant No.7 Mr. Himanshu Kumar was not available from 26.07.2024 to 30.07.2024 and from 10.08.2024 to 19.08.2024. It is respectfully submitted that it was only after 21.09.2024 that all Appellants could come together to review the documents and give instructions to the counsel for taking steps for removal of defects. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efiling after such an inordinately long period of 139 days. It was pointed out that plea taken by the Applicant that time was taken in consultation with Appellant-Home-buyers since they were unavailable is dubious as no reasons have been stated to explain their unavailability. The Applicant has also failed to explain why application was not lodged on time for obtaining certified copy of impugned order from NCLT Registry. Even the ground raised of Dussehra and Diwali vacations leading to delay is baseless since the NCLAT Registry was partly functional during the vacations. This explanation not only lacks foundation but smacks of negligence and a casual attitude on the part of the counsel in handling the appeal. It was vehemently contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the certified copy of impugned order was obtained as late as on 27.09.2024. Clearly a period of nearly four months was allowed to be frittered away in obtaining the certified copy. This indicates a rather casual disposition on the part of the Applicant as well as the counsel in filing a defect free appeal. Such a lack-lustre, careless and negligent approach does not commend us especially in view of the fact that IBC prescribes strict time-lines in the completion of the CIRP proceedings. Even the attribution of court vacations as a ground for delay is not acceptable since the holiday period on account of Dussehra and Diwali vacations does not exceed 15-20 days collectively as against a delay of 139 days noticed in the present case. We also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
