NCLAT Delhi Refuses to Condone 202-Day Refiling Delay — Counsel's Personal Crisis Not a Valid Ground for Appellant's Inaction

Background and Context

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi Bench, delivered a significant ruling in In re Rajendra Devidas Puranik (NCLAT Delhi), firmly rejecting an application for condonation of a 202-day delay in refiling a company appeal and, as a consequence, dismissing the underlying appeal itself. The decision underscores a well-established procedural principle: a litigant cannot adopt the personal difficulties of his counsel as a substitute for his own explanation when seeking condonation of delay before a tribunal.

Facts of the Case

The appellant in this matter was serving as the Liquidator for M/s Brown Packaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. He had approached NCLAT challenging an order passed by NCLT Mumbai in I.A. (Companies Act)/242(MB) 2025, arising from C.P. No. 20(MB)/2024. Through the impugned order dated 08.12.2025, NCLT Mumbai had partly allowed the Liquidator's application but restricted the remuneration payable to him, granting only ₹4,00,000 + GST over and above the amount payable under Regulation 4 of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations.

The appellant's grievance was that this remuneration figure was contrary to what had been approved by the contributories and creditors at the fifth meeting held on 23.10.2025, and also ran counter to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules, 2020, which govern the parameters for fixing a Liquidator's remuneration.

Timeline of Procedural Events

The procedural chronology in this matter is critical to understanding the Tribunal's reasoning:

  1. The appeal was originally e-filed on 10.01.2026 before the NCLAT Registry.
  2. The first scrutiny took place on 16.01.2026, and defect intimations were communicated to both the appellant and his counsel on the same date via email.
  3. Rather than curing all the defects, only partial rectification was carried out, and the appeal was refiled on 28.05.2026.
  4. A fresh round of scrutiny on 29.06.2026 identified continuing defects, which were again communicated to the appellant and counsel.
  5. Despite these communications, defects persisted, and a final scrutiny on 07.08.2026 once again flagged the same issues.
  6. The Registry ultimately reported a cumulative delay of 202 days in refiling the appeal.

The Condonation Application: I.A. No. 6046 of 2026

To address this delay, the appellant filed I.A. No. 6046 of 2026, seeking condonation of the 202-day delay in refiling Company Appeal (AT) No. 326 of 2026. The application relied upon the following explanation, as stated in paragraph 9 thereof: