Geographical distance between counsel and clerk no excuse for delay in filing appeal: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in New Delhi recently held that coordination issues between a lawyer and a clerk working from different cities cannot justify missing court deadlines [Komal Rakshit Patel vs Vinod Tarachand Agrawal Rp Of Jay Formulation Ltd & Ors.].

Technical member Barun Mitra of NCLAT made the observation while refused to excuse a delay of 105 days in re-filing an insolvency appeal.

The tribunal rejected both the application seeking delay condonation and the main appeal.

While considering the reasons given for the delay, the tribunal noted that the delay was mostly blamed on coordination difficulties between the lawyer and his clerk because they were based in different cities.

“The Applicant has attributed a large part of the delay to the time consumed in coordination exercise between the counsel and his clerk on grounds of not being co-located. This ground of delay does not persuade us sufficiently enough since lack of geographical proximity cannot be touted to justify such protracted procedural delays,” the tribunal said.

The appeal had initially been returned by the court registry due to defects, such as missing or unclear documents. Typically, parties are expected to fix these issues and re-submit the appeal promptly.

In this case, the corrected appeal was filed 105 days late, prompting the appellant to request the tribunal to “condone” (forgive) the delay.

The appellant argued several reasons for the delay. The reasons given were:

• There was coordination challenges between the lawyer, who was based in Ahmedabad and the clerk in New Delhi;

• The lawyer’s foreign travel in May 2025 affected the refiling process;

• Court vacations in June 2025 contributed to the pause in proceedings.

• The appellant faced health issues starting in July 2025;

• The clerk’s illness further impacted the process.

The tribunal accepted that the appellant had medical problems, as reports were provided to support this. However, it pointed out that this explained only part of the delay. It noted that no proof was submitted to show that the clerk was unwell.

Importantly, the tribunal held that routine matters such as travel, holidays, and working from different cities cannot be treated as valid excuses for missing court deadlines.

The respondents, resolution professional of Jay Formulation Ltd, represented by the company’s insolvency professional, said the appellant had repeatedly failed to act despite being given chances to correct the defects.

After considering all arguments, the tribunal found no sufficient reason to excuse the long delay.

As a result, the request to condone the late filing was rejected and since the appeal could not proceed without being filed on time, it was dismissed.

Advocate Arjun Sheth represented the appellant.

Advocate Karan Valecha represented the respondents.

[Read Order]