Court vacation not excuse for delay in refiling appeal: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently pulled up a litigant for citing the appellate tribunal's summer vacations as a reason for delays noticed in refiling an appeal [Liquidator Independent TV Vs Ministry of Information & Broadcasting]..In an order passed on January 3, Chairperson Justice (retd) Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed,"This is a lame and hackneyed excuse which clearly has no legs to stand on since the Registry is always open and working even during vacation time. We are therefore not impressed with vacations being made the scapegoat to cover up the Applicant’s lethargy in curing the defects."The appellate tribunal proceeded to dismiss the litigant's application to condone a 166-day delay in refiling the appeal. .The case pertained to an appeal filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) from February 2024, refusing to order the restitution of ₹50 crores from the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and a few other entities.The appeal was filed by the liquidator of the Anil Ambani-owned Independent TV. Independent TV, formerly known as Reliance Big TV, was an Indian direct-to-home (DTH) television operator that ceased operations in June 2019. While the appeal itself was filed within thirty days from the NCLT's order, the technical defects were cured only in October 2025. .The appellant also filed an additional affidavit to explain the 166-day delay in refiling the appeal. The appellant attributed the delay to several factors, including the bereavement of the counsel’s grandfather in April, summer vacations in June, and repeated defect corrections flagged by the appellate tribunal's registry. The appellant argued that these circumstances were beyond the control of the applicant.While the appellate tribunal expressed sympathy for the bereavement and acknowledged a month’s delay as justified, it took strong exception to the reliance on court vacations as an excuse."We are inclined to agree to the time lapse of a month as has been claimed by the Applicant to justify the delay. This period of one month admittedly came to an end in mid-May, which time this Tribunal was fully operational. However, there seems to have been total inertia and non-action on the part of the Applicant to take any steps towards removing the defects," the order said.Furthermore, the Bench noted that the repeated defect corrections underscored the applicant's lack of diligence. "Had the Applicant been more alert, careful, and vigilant, they would not have been required to undergo the rigmarole of correcting defects four times," it said..The NCLAT acknowledged a liberal approach is generally expected to be taken in such matters involving the condonation of delay. However, it added that the plausibility of the explanation offered for such a delay is also important when the delay is protracted."It goes without saying that it is normative that re-filing delay condonation application warrants a liberal and lenient treatment and is a matter which largely lies between the Court and the Applicant. Be that as it may, when delay in refiling is unduly protracted, for condonation of the same, the Bench must be satisfied with the genuineness and plausibility of the explanation offered," the order said. .The appellants were represented by Advocates Abhishek Anand, Shankari Mishra, and Jyoti Khurana.The respondents were represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Shiva Lakshmi, and Advocate Govind Sharma..[Read Judgment]