2018 (3) TMI 1939 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Application for condonation of delay in filing application - defective appeal was preferred by the Appellant after delay of more than six months on 22nd September, 2017 without any application for condonation of delay - HELD THAT - It is found that the Appellant has not explained as to what action the Appellant had taken between 15th March, 2017 and 18th August, 2017 i.e. between the day of judgment and the day the application for certified copy was filed. As per Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, if an appeal is preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Appellate Tribunal counts the period of limitation from the date on which a copy of the order is made available by the Tribunal in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 - the appeal is required to be filed within thirty-days, means within thirty-days from the date of knowledge of the order against which appeal is preferred. In the present case, as Appellant had knowledge of the impugned order as on the date of pronouncement of the said order i.e. 15th March, 2017. It is not the case of the Appellant that its Lawyer has not informed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 223 of 2017 of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority - application for condonation of delay being not satisfactory, it is fit to be rejected. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Condonation of delay.
3. Provisions for filing appeals under different statutes.
4. Knowledge of the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against a decision by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was filed after a significant delay of more than six months without any application for condonation of delay initially. The Appellant later applied for condonation of delay, claiming only a delay of two days. The Respondent opposed this delay, highlighting that the judgment was delivered in open court in the presence of the Appellant's counsel. The record did not show any actions taken by the Appellant between the date of judgment and the date of filing the application for a certified copy.

2. The Appellant argued that they did not receive a copy of the impugned order promptly. However, it was acknowledged that the order was passed in the presence of the Appellant's counsel. The judgment further delves into the provisions governing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal under the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The timelines and conditions for filing appeals differ under these statutes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed periods for filing appeals.

3. The judgment elucidates the provisions under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, which govern appeals from orders of the Tribunal. It outlines the time limits for filing appeals and the circumstances under which the Appellate Tribunal may entertain appeals filed beyond the initial period. Similarly, the provisions under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, are discussed, highlighting the distinct timelines and grounds for filing appeals against orders of the Adjudicating Authority.

4. In the present case, the Appellant was deemed to have knowledge of the impugned order on the date of its pronouncement. The judgment concludes that the grounds presented for condonation of delay were unsatisfactory, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay and the dismissal of the appeal as being time-barred. The decision underscores the importance of timely filing appeals and the consequences of failing to adhere to the statutory timelines for appeal submissions.