Rehan Khan
On 03rd January, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reprimanded a litigant for citing summer vacations as a reason for delays in refiling an appeal in the case Liquidator Independent TV Vs Ministry of Information & Broadcasting.
In the order, Chairperson Justice (retd) Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra dismissed the application to condone a 166-day delay, stating, “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 appeal challenged a February 2024 order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had refused to direct the restitution of ₹50 crores from the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and other entities. The appeal was filed by the liquidator of Independent TV, formerly known as Reliance Big TV, a DTH television operator that ceased operations in June 2019.
Although the initial appeal was filed within thirty days, technical defects were addressed only in October 2025. The appellant submitted an affidavit attributing the 166-day delay to various factors, including the bereavement of the counsel’s grandfather in April, summer vacations in June, and multiple rounds of defect corrections flagged by the registry.
While the tribunal expressed sympathy for the bereavement and accepted a month-long delay as justified, it strongly criticized the reliance on court vacations as an excuse. The Bench remarked, “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 NCLAT underscored the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays but emphasized the importance of a plausible explanation, especially for prolonged delays. The Bench noted, “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.”