NCLAT Refuses To Condon 198-Day Delay In Refiling Om Logistics’ Insolvency Appeal, Says Company Cannot Depend On One Authorised Signatory

May 6, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has refused to condone a delay of 198 days in refiling an insolvency appeal filed by Om Logistics Limited, holding that a company cannot justify prolonged delay merely on the ground that one authorised signatory was unavailable. The Appellate Tribunal observed that repeated failure to cure defects despite multiple opportunities reflected lack of seriousness and due diligence on the part of the appellant.

A Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey dismissed the appeal after rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in refiling. The order was passed in Om Logistics Limited v. Bakul Casting Private Limited.

The dispute arose from an order dated February 3, 2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench, which had dismissed a Section 9 application filed by Om Logistics Limited against Bakul Casting Private Limited. The operational creditor had sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) over alleged unpaid transportation and logistics dues amounting to ₹10.52 lakh. The NCLT had held that the operational creditor failed to establish existence of an undisputed operational debt and default.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of its insolvency plea, Om Logistics filed an appeal before the NCLAT on March 18, 2025, within the extended condonable period under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the appeal was found defective by the Registry and remained under repeated scrutiny for several months.

The appellant sought condonation of 198 days’ delay in refiling, contending that its authorised signatory, who was also custodian of records necessary for curing defects, remained unavailable till April 13, 2025 due to personal exigencies. It further argued that the Registry repeatedly raised fresh objections during more than 15 rounds of scrutiny between March and October 2025, resulting in cumulative procedural delay.

Om Logistics submitted that the delay was procedural and bona fide in nature and that the appeal had never remained dormant. According to the appellant, defects were being cured continuously whenever pointed out by the Registry and refusal to condone the delay would deprive it of adjudication on merits.

Opposing the plea, the respondent argued that the explanation furnished was vague and insufficient. It was submitted that the appellant had displayed persistent negligence in curing defects despite repeated reminders by the Registry and had also failed to diligently prosecute proceedings before the NCLT. The respondent further pointed out that the appellant had remained absent before the NCLT on several hearing dates, including June 19, 2020, October 23, 2020, March 4, 2021, July 5, 2021, July 26, 2021, January 6, 2023 and April 25, 2024.

The NCLAT noted that although the initial appeal had been filed within the condonable period, the appellant took 198 days to cure defects and properly refile the matter. The Tribunal held that the explanation relating to the authorised signatory’s absence was unsupported by any material and did not constitute sufficient cause.

Rejecting the contention, the Bench observed: “The Appellant is a company, and a company does not depend on just one person for performing a particular activity. It can act through its directors, officers, or any other authorized representative.”

The Tribunal further held that if one person was unavailable, the company could have authorised another representative to handle the matter and therefore the explanation only reflected lack of proper care and diligence.

The Appellate Tribunal also examined the record of defects pointed out by the Registry and found that the same defects continued to remain uncured for several months. It noted that defects relating to filing of the certified copy of the impugned order and uploading separate PDFs for interlocutory applications were repeatedly pointed out on May 14, 2025, May 27, 2025, July 8, 2025, August 18, 2025, August 29, 2025 and September 2, 2025.

The Bench observed that taking more than three-and-a-half months to cure the same procedural defects demonstrated lack of seriousness on the part of the appellant. It further noted that the appellant had attempted to blame Registry procedures for the delay despite defects repeatedly remaining uncured due to its own laxity.

Referring to the time-bound nature of insolvency proceedings under the IBC, the Tribunal held that condoning such prolonged and unexplained delay would defeat the objective of speedy resolution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the NCLAT reiterated that delay caused by negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds.

Holding that the appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation, the Tribunal rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in refiling and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Om Logistics Limited v. Bakul Casting Private Limited
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1687 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan and Indevar Pandey .