NCLAT Says Om Logistics Cannot Cite Absence Of One Authorised Signatory To Explain 198-Day Refiling Delay

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) at Delhi has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Om Logistics Limited after refusing to condone a delay of 198 days in refiling.

The tribunal rejected the company's explanation that its authorised signatory was unavailable till April 13, 2025 due to personal exigencies.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed that Om Logistics Limited could not justify the prolonged delay merely because one authorised signatory was unavailable.

“The Appellant is a company, and a company does not depend on just one person for performing a particular activity. It can act through its directors, officers, or any other authorized representative. If one person was unavailable, the company could have easily appointed or authorized someone else to handle the matter. In normal business and legal practice, companies act through multiple persons. Therefore, this reason does not justify such a long delay and instead shows lack of proper care and diligence on the part of the Appellant.”

The dispute arose from an order dated February 3, 2025 passed by the NCLT, Indore Bench, dismissing a Section 9 insolvency plea filed by Om Logistics Limited against Bakul Casting Private Limited. Aggrieved by the dismissal, Om Logistics Limited filed the present appeal before the NCLAT along with an application seeking condonation of the 198-day delay in re-filing.

Om Logistics Limited argued that although the appeal had been filed within the condonable period, it could not cure the defects pointed out by the Registry because its authorised signatory, who was the custodian of records, remained unavailable till April 13, 2025. It further submitted that fresh defects were repeatedly pointed out during multiple rounds of scrutiny and re-filing.

The tribunal, however, noted that the same defects were repeatedly pointed out by the Registry over several months, but remained uncured.

“Such conduct of Appellant clearly reflects lack of seriousness and due diligence on the part of the Appellant.” , the tribunal held.

The NCLAT also referred to Om Logistics Limited's conduct before the NCLT and observed that it had remained absent on multiple hearing dates, contributing to prolonged pendency of the proceedings.

“This pattern indicates that the Appellant did not appear with due seriousness despite repeated listings and opportunities, thereby contributing to prolonged pendency before the Adjudicating Authority. Such conduct, when seen along with the delay in filing and re-filing the present appeal, reflects a consistent lack of diligence in pursuing the remedy.”, the tribunal observed.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013), the tribunal reiterated that delay caused by negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds.

“In the present case, the conduct of the Appellant does not satisfy this standard.”, the tribunal held.

Accordingly, the NCLAT rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal filed by Om Logistics Limited.