FMAT/416/2025 of COIR FOAM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs BALURGHAT TECHNOLOGIES LTD on 16 September 2026

1. The present condonation application and the supplementary affidavit filed in connection therewith pray for the condonation of the delay of about 178 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the premise of the averments made in the application and the supplementary affidavit filed today, contends that one Sri Inderjeet Singh Khurana, a Director of the appellant-company, who was in charge of the affairs of the litigation of the company, had expired on November 22, 2024. Since he was handling the case and his wife underwent serious ailments and had to have medical treatment abroad, the appeal could not be pursued in time. It has also been pleaded that due to “turmoil in the management” of the company in the interregnum, the matter could not be followed up.

3. For a few months in the interregnum, the appellant also cites the ailment of the learned Advocate-on- record for the appellant as a reason for the delay.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent opposes the prayer and submits that there were as many as three Directors of the appellant-company.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel, we find no merit in the application.

6. Even if we accept the period of ailment of the learned Advocate for the appellant, we are unable to satisfy ourselves as to any plausibility in the explanation offered by the appellant for its inaction over the long period of 178 days. Even if Sri Khurana, one of the Directors of the company, had expired, we find no reason as to why one of the other Directors or some other functionary of the company, which is a juristic entity independent of its Directors, could not pursue the appeal.

7. It has not been averred in any place within the four corners of the application or the supplementary affidavit that Sri Khurana was the only Director of the company and/or the only person who could have looked after the affairs of the company. Rather, the appellant admits that Sri Khurana was “one of the Directors” of the company. Moreover, the exact nature of the “turmoil in the management” in the company ensuing after the death of Sri Khurana has been kept conveniently vague in the supplementary affidavit as well.

8. Thus, there is no substantial cause made out for the delay in preferring the appeal.

9. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed on contest.

10. As a result, FMAT 416 of 2025 is dismissed as time- barred. Consequentially, CAN 2 of 2026 is also dismissed.

11. There will be no order as to costs.

12. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Sandip Kumar De, J.)