NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation -- Condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation -- Condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause -- Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute “sufficient cause” or not would be dependent upon facts of each case -- There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Consumer complaint -- Delay in filing written statement -- Application was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench – Held, said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757, because the said judgment was to operate prospectively.

(SC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Condonation of delay beyond 120 days – Arbitration case -- Application itself must be within time, and if not within a period of three months, must be accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, provided it is within a further period of 30 days -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply -- Any delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. Himachal Techno Engineers’s case (2010) 12 SCC 210 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.01.2020

Delay of 312 days in filing appeal – Submitted that there was construction going on in the office of the filing counsel and as such the file was erroneously misplaced and as such there has been a delay in filing of the present appeal -- Explanation for condoning 312 days delay not worthy of acceptance -- Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020