AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
19.03.2025: I.A. No. 1093/2025 1. This is an application praying for condonation of 193 days delay in refiling of the appeal.
In the application, the reason given by the appellant is that appeal was filed on 11.07.2024 and defect sheet was marked on 22.07.2024 and he attempted to file first refiling on 25.10.2024. In paragraph 3 of the application, following is the reason given for explaining the delay:
“3. That the delay in re-filing of the present Appeal has occurred due to the following genuine and unavoidable circumstances:
a. That the Appellant’s father suffered a severe brain stroke on 20.06.2024, resulting in a blood clot in his brain which has caused complete paralysis of the right side of his body. Since then, he has been completely bred-ridden and requires constant care and attention.
b. That the Appellant, being the dutiful son and primary caregiver, has been personally Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 319 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1093 of 2025 2 of 2 attending to his father’s medical needs, which include regular hospital visits, therapy sessions, and round-the-clock care at home.
c. That due to the sudden and serious nature of his father’s medical condition, the Appellant had to prioritize his father’s critical health situation over other matters, including the re-filing of the present Appeal. That the Appellant, despite his best intentions and efforts, was unable to devote time to legal proceedings as he was physically and mentally occupied with his father’s treatment and care.
d. It is also submitted that the Appellant is a resident of Ludhiana, Punjab and has to travel to New Delhi for the same which is time consuming.”
We find that the explanation given in paragraph 3 cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the refiling delay of 193 days. Appeal arises out of IBC proceeding where timelines have its own relevance.
We are of the view that no satisfactory reason has been given for condoning the delay of 193 days in refiling. The application for condonation of refiling delay is rejected. Consequently, memo of appeal is also rejected.