NCLAT Delhi Says Counsel's Personal Difficulties Cannot Explain Appellant's 202-Day Refiling Delay

On 18 September, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi held that an appellant cannot rely on the personal difficulties of his counsel to explain his own failure to rectify Registry defects and seek condonation of a 202-day delay in refiling an appeal.

A Bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma with Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by Rajendra Devidas Puranik against the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order restricting his remuneration to Rs. 4,00,000 plus GST, in addition to payments under Regulation 4 of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations. The Tribunal observed:

“The litigant will have to stand on his own legs in order to explain the delay that has chanced in refiling. As inability of counsel cannot be inability of litigant to restrict him in rectifying the defects when most of work involved therein is only ministerial in nature, which could have undertaken by Appellant himself or with assistance by any other counsel.”

Puranik had challenged the NCLT's order, contending that the remuneration fixed by the Tribunal was contrary to the recommendations of creditors and contributories recorded in the fifth meeting.

He e-filed the appeal on 10 January 2026. The Registry notified defects to Puranik and his counsel on 16 January. Although partial rectification was attempted, the appeal was refiled only on 28 May 2026.

The Registry again found defects during scrutiny on 29 June and 7 August and repeatedly intimated Puranik by email. It ultimately reported a delay of 202 days in refiling the appeal.

Puranik then filed an Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of the delay. The supporting affidavit was filed by his counsel instead of Puranik. The counsel stated that he was the caregiver for his ailing mother, who was undergoing treatment, and that this had prevented the defects from being rectified.

The Bench examined Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, which empowers the Registry to reject an appeal where defects are not cured within the prescribed period. It held that an affidavit supporting an application for condonation of delay must be filed by the litigant himself. The Bench observed that counsel could not identify himself with the litigant or dilute professional integrity by filing such an affidavit.

Further, the Tribunal noted that Puranik, being a liquidator, was expected to have knowledge of the procedural requirements under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, but failed to act diligently. It observed:

“Counsel's personal inability cannot be an inability of the Appellant to rectify the defects, and that too if we take into consideration the number of reports which have been given by the Registry and if it is compared with the schedule of treatment which has been given therein. There was sufficient gap in between periods wherein the Appellant could have coordinated with the counsel and should have rectified the defects.”

The Bench held that the delay was inordinate and remained unexplained, as Puranik sought to explain it by relying on his counsel's personal difficulties. It therefore rejected the Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of delay.

Accordingly, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.