NCLAT Refuses to Condon 112-Day Delay in Re-Filing by Kotak Mahindra Bank, Dismisses Appeal

April 10, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has declined to condone a delay of 112 days in re-filing an appeal by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in the insolvency matter of DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd., holding that routine administrative and procedural difficulties cannot constitute sufficient cause under the insolvency framework.

The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, reiterating the importance of strict adherence to timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The delay arose during re-filing of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1952 of 2025, where the appellant contended that multiple defects pointed out by the Registry required extensive rectification. It was submitted that the appeal contained voluminous annexures including forensic audit materials, Committee of Creditors minutes, CIRP correspondence, and IBBI disciplinary orders, many of which were illegible and required re-scanning, re-typing, and re-compilation. The appellant also cited difficulty in retrieving original documents from Mumbai, inter-departmental coordination, and the time-consuming process of re-pagination, restructuring the index, and cross-referencing annexures as reasons for the delay.

Opposing the application, the respondents argued that the explanations were vague, routine, and unsupported by any material. They pointed out that no defect sheet had been placed on record, no specific defects had been identified, and no date-wise account of steps taken to cure the defects had been provided. It was further contended that most of the documents were already available or in electronic form, and therefore did not justify the prolonged delay.

After considering the submissions, the Appellate Tribunal held that the decisive factor in condonation of delay is the existence of sufficient cause, not merely the length of delay. Emphasizing the time-bound nature of insolvency proceedings, the Tribunal observed that delay in re-filing can be condoned only where the applicant demonstrates that the delay was beyond its control.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to place on record the defect sheet or disclose the specific defects pointed out by the Registry. It also noted the absence of any date-wise chronology or material evidence demonstrating efforts taken to cure the defects. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that it was not possible to assess whether the delay was genuinely unavoidable. It observed that the explanation furnished reflected that the appellant’s efforts were lost in a maze of generalized and routine internal administrative processes.

The Tribunal further held that re-compilation, re-pagination, and logistical inconvenience could not justify a delay of 112 days, particularly when the appeal had already been filed and only defects were required to be cured. It found merit in the respondents’ contention that most annexures were already available and only limited documents required retrieval, making the explanation ex facie insufficient.

Rejecting reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramachandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the judgment itself clarified that it is not to be treated as a precedent and that condonation of delay must be assessed on the facts of each case.

Concluding that no exceptional or unavoidable circumstances had been shown, the Tribunal held that sufficient cause was not made out. The application for condonation of delay was accordingly rejected, and the memo of appeal was also dismissed.

Cause Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Naren Sheth, RP of DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: I.A. No. 7489 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1952 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member)