Introduction:
Delay condonation is the court’s discretionary power to allow the filing of an appeal or document after the deadline has passed. For a delay to be condoned, the applicant must provide a convincing, reasonable, and plausible explanation, such as serious illness, family emergencies, or other unavoidable circumstances.
However, delays caused by negligence, lack of diligence, or indifference to legal procedures are not condoned. Vague excuses like court vacations or insufficient staff are insufficient grounds for delay, particularly if the applicant had sufficient time to act. Courts will only condone delays that are genuinely unavoidable and adequately explained. This principle was emphasized in Anup Kumar, Liquidator of Independent TV vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors., before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi.
Facts of the case:
The present matter revolves around an application seeking condonation of a 166-day delay in refiling an appeal. The delay was attributed to the counsel’s obligations following a family bereavement, the intervening court vacation, a shortage of staff, and repeated corrections required by the Registry due to identified defects in the appeal.
The applicant argued that genuine and unavoidable circumstances caused the delay and was not deliberate. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the application, describing the delay as excessive and attributing it to negligence and a lack of diligence in addressing the Registry’s objections. It was contended that no sufficient grounds were presented to justify condoning the delay.
Observations of the tribunal:
The Tribunal reviewed the application to condone a 166-day delay in refiling the appeal. It acknowledged that such applications are usually treated with leniency but emphasized that a valid explanation must support a significant delay. The applicant explained that the delay was due to a family loss and the associated rituals, which caused a one-month delay. The Tribunal accepted this reason for the delay up until May 2024 but noted that the applicant did not take any steps to address the defects in the appeal despite the Tribunal being operational during that time.
The applicant also cited the summer vacation in June as a contributing factor, but the Tribunal dismissed this as an insufficient excuse, pointing out that the Registry operates during vacations. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the need for repeated corrections due to defects raised by the Registry caused the delay. However, the Tribunal found this argument unconvincing, stating that the applicant’s lack of promptness and diligence in addressing the defects was the real cause of the delay.
Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the delay resulted from the applicant’s negligence and inaction rather than genuine reasons, and dismissed the application to condone the delay.
*The content of this article is intended to provide general information. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting based on the information written above without first seeking legal advice from a qualified law practitioner.
Author: Hiteashi Rajan Desai, Associate at R&D Law Chambers LLP
* R & D Law Chambers is a firm that provides legal advisory and international and domestic tax advisory services. To know more visit https://rdlawchambers.com/.