Unexplained 227-day delay in refiling, unsupported by continuous incapacity, defeats condonation.

The Appellants challenged the NCLT’s orders dated 22 July 2025 concerning proceedings under Sections 241 and 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. In Company Appeal (AT) No. 184 of 2026, the NCLT rejected the Appellants’ application seeking waiver of the eligibility requirements under the proviso to Section 244 and consequently dismissed the company petition at the threshold. In the connected appeal, Company Appeal (AT) No. 185 of 2026, the NCLT dismissed as infructuous an application challenging the maintainability of the company petition, following dismissal of the waiver application.

Both appeals were originally e-filed on 04 September 2025, within the prescribed limitation period. The Registry communicated defects on 08 September 2025 and required rectification within seven days under Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Appellants ultimately re-filed the appeals after substantial delay, with the final re-filing recorded as having taken place on 30 April 2026, resulting in a delay of approximately 227 days. The Appellants sought condonation of the re-filing delay, relying principally on the continuing medical problems of both Appellants and the alleged difficulties in coordinating with counsel, curing defects and executing documents.

Whether the Appellants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the substantial delay in re-filing the appeals after removal of Registry defects under Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016?

Whether the medical records and circumstances relied upon by the Appellants adequately explained the entire period of delay from 15 September 2025 to 30 April 2026?

Whether the precedents relied upon by the Appellants justified condonation of the delay in the facts of the present case?

The Tribunal applied Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which requires defects in an appeal or document to be cured within seven days of its return by the Registry; failure to do so permits the matter to be placed before the Registrar for appropriate orders.

Rule 26(3) empowers the Registrar to allow reasonable additional time or extend the time for compliance where sufficient cause is shown, while Rule 26(4) permits refusal to register the appeal where the party fails to take steps for removal of defects.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that condonation of re-filing delay is discretionary and requires a satisfactory, bona fide and sufficiently comprehensive explanation for the entire period of delay.

It distinguished Ajit Singh v. Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd., where a specifically explained two-day delay was condoned, and Brahampal @ Sammay v. National Insurance Co., where illness was considered in the context of a comparatively short 45-day delay.

Although the appeals had been instituted within limitation, the Appellants were required to cure the Registry defects within seven days, i.e., by 15 September 2025.

The Tribunal found that the medical records relied upon consisted principally of outpatient consultations and did not establish hospitalisation, continuous incapacity or an inability to undertake the necessary litigation formalities throughout the entire period up to April 2026.

The first relevant outpatient consultation of Appellant No. 1 was dated 19 December 2025, more than three months after the deadline, and the records did not account for the intervening period or explain why the defects could not have been cured earlier.

The Tribunal held that the initial timely filing did not, by itself, excuse a prolonged and unexplained delay in re-filing, particularly where no continuous sequence of steps or circumstances demonstrating due diligence was shown. The decisions relied upon by the Appellants were distinguished because they involved materially shorter delays supported by specific explanations, unlike the 227-day delay in the present case.

Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 3268 and 3269 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay were dismissed, and Company Appeal (AT) Nos. 184 and 185 of 2026 were also dismissed on the ground of delay in re-filing.