Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 18th September, 2026

Case Overview

The Company Appeal (AT) No. 326 of 2026 was filed by Mr. Rajendra Devidas Puranik, the Liquidator for M/s Brown Packaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. The appeal challenged the Impugned Order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench in IA (Companies Act)/242(MB)2025 in CP/20(MB)2024. The NCLT order had partly allowed the Liquidator's application but restricted his remuneration to ₹4,00,000 + GST, in addition to amounts payable under Regulation 4 of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations. The Liquidator contended this was contrary to the approvals granted by contributories and creditors in the fifth meeting held on 23.10.2025 and violated the Companies Act, 2013 and Companies (Winding Up) Rules, 2020.

The appeal was initially e-filed on 10.01.2026. The Registry identified defects and notified the Appellant via email on 16.01.2026, 29.06.2026, and 07.08.2026. The defects were only partially rectified, and the appeal was refiled on 28.05.2026, resulting in a 202-day delay in refiling. The Appellant filed IA No. 6046 of 2026 seeking condonation of this delay. The sole justification provided was that the Advocate-on-Record was caring for his 75-year-old mother, who was diagnosed with cancer and required intensive treatment from 09.02.2026 to 27.02.2026 and thereafter. The affidavit in support of the delay condonation was filed by the counsel, not the litigant (the Liquidator) himself.

The Tribunal scrutinized the explanation under Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, which mandates that defects must be rectified within 7 days of notification, failing which the Registrar may decline registration. The judgment emphasized that a counsel's personal inability cannot constitute a valid explanation for the litigant's failure to comply with procedural timelines. It noted that the Liquidator, being a professional, was expected to understand the implications of delay under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found the 202-day delay inordinate and unexplained, as the Appellant had sufficient opportunities to rectify the defects independently, especially during periods outside the counsel's claimed medical emergencies.

Final Outcome

IA No. 6046 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay was rejected. Consequently, Company Appeal (AT) No. 326 of 2026 was dismissed. The Liquidator's challenge to the NCLT's remuneration order remains unadjudicated on merits due to procedural non-compliance.

Topics: NCLAT Procedure, Delay Condonation, Liquidator Remuneration