Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (1) TMI 898 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay.
2. Declaration of appeal within the period specified in Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Filing of certified copy of the order.

Summary:

Application for Condonation of Delay:
The Appellant filed I.A. No. 1315 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1316 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeals. The Respondents contested these applications. The Appellant argued that the delay was due to obtaining a free certified copy of the order, which was made ready on 01.08.2023. The Appellant contended that the limitation period should start from the date of receipt of the certified copy. However, the Respondents argued that the Appellant did not apply for a certified copy and made false declarations in the appeal.

Declaration of Appeal Within the Period Specified in Section 61 of the Code:
The Appellant declared in the grounds of appeal that the appeals were within the period specified in Section 61 of the Code. However, it was later revealed that the Appellant did not apply for a certified copy and made false declarations in the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appeals were not filed within the 30-day period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.

Filing of Certified Copy of the Order:
The Appellant did not apply for a certified copy of the order and instead filed the appeals with a free certified copy and a copy shared by the Resolution Professional (RP). The Tribunal emphasized that filing a certified copy is mandatory under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Appellant's failure to comply with this requirement and making false declarations led to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay due to the Appellant's false declarations and failure to apply for a certified copy. Consequently, the appeals were not found to be duly constituted and were dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates