Tribunal holds that counsel’s personal difficulties cannot excuse litigant’s failure to cure defects; appeal dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay in refiling.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the liquidator of M/s Brown Packaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. after refusing to condone a 202-day delay in refiling. The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate, unexplained, and could not be justified merely on the basis of the counsel’s personal difficulties, including the treatment of his aged mother.
The appeal had challenged an order dated 8 December 2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in proceedings arising out of the liquidation process. The appellant-liquidator had sought higher remuneration, arguing that the amount sanctioned by the Tribunal was contrary to the approval allegedly given by the contributories and creditors in the fifth meeting held on 23 October 2025, as well as contrary to the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant liquidation rules.
However, before the merits of the appeal could be examined, the NCLAT first addressed the issue of delay in refiling. The Registry had pointed out defects in the appeal on multiple occasions, beginning with the first scrutiny on 16 January 2026. Though the defects were partially cured, the appeal was refiled only on 28 May 2026. Further scrutiny on 29 June 2026 and again on 7 August 2026 revealed that defects still remained uncured. The Registry consequently reported a delay of 202 days in refiling.
In support of the application for condonation of delay, the appellant relied on the illness of his advocate-on-record’s mother, who was stated to be a cancer patient requiring continuous treatment. The Tribunal, however, found this explanation insufficient. It observed that the affidavit was not filed by the appellant himself, but by counsel, and emphasized that a litigant must independently explain the delay and cannot borrow the personal circumstances of counsel to justify inaction.
The NCLAT noted that the defects pointed out by the Registry were largely ministerial in nature and could have been rectified by the appellant himself or with assistance from another counsel. The Tribunal also stressed that the appellant, being a liquidator, was expected to be fully aware of procedural requirements and the consequences of delay. Since no affidavit or independent explanation was filed by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the delay remained unexplained.
Referring to Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the Bench reiterated that when defects are not removed within the prescribed time, the Registrar is empowered to take appropriate action, including declining to register the appeal. The Tribunal held that the appellant had ample opportunity to cure the defects but failed to act diligently.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and as a consequence, the company appeal itself stood dismissed.
Bottom Line :
Delay in refiling appeal cannot be condoned when it remains inordinate and unexplained; personal difficulty of counsel, including illness of counsel's mother, cannot by itself constitute sufficient cause for litigant's failure to cure defects, particularly when litigant himself had opportunity and ability to rectify defects.
Statutory provision(s): Rule 26, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, Section 421, Companies Act, 2013
Rajendra Devidas Puranik, (NCLAT)(New Delhi)(Principal Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982781
