2021 (12) TMI 1448 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the application - restoration application filed for setting aside the dismissal order allowed - good ground to condone the delay, present or not - Appellant submits that in the impugned order it has been noted that Counsel for Applicant made statement with regard to his family members being suffering from COVID-19. HELD THAT - There are no inconsistency with the Statement made in para 5 of the Application filed by the Applicant and statement of the counsel for the Applicant which was recorded in the impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority condoned the delay in filing the application and restored the petition - no ground is made out to entertain this Appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing restoration application, Condonation of delay, Separate decision on condonation and restoration, Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority, Discretion of Adjudicating Authority.

Delay in filing restoration application:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority allowing the restoration application for setting aside a dismissal order due to a delay of 27 days. The appellant argued that there was no good ground to condone the delay and that the application for condonation of delay and restoration should have been decided separately. However, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was in accordance with the law, and substantive justice was done by restoring the main petition and condoning the delay. The appeal was dismissed.

Condonation of delay:
The Adjudicating Authority had condoned the delay in filing the restoration application. The appellant contended that there was no valid reason for condonation. However, the Tribunal found that the discretion exercised by the Adjudicating Authority in condoning the delay and restoring the petition was justified. It was concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the judgment.

Separate decision on condonation and restoration:
The appellant argued that the application for condonation of delay and restoration should have been decided separately. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to restore the main petition and condone the delay in a single order.

Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority:
The Tribunal affirmed that the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was in accordance with the law. It was noted that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to decide on the restoration application and had exercised its discretion appropriately in this case.

Discretion of Adjudicating Authority:
The Adjudicating Authority had discretion in condoning the delay in filing the restoration application and deciding on the restoration of the main petition. The Tribunal agreed with the exercise of discretion by the Adjudicating Authority and found no grounds to entertain the appeal. The appellant's request to provide citations of judgments after the appeal was dismissed was rejected by the Tribunal.