9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 375 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - reason of rejection as shown by the Liquidator is that the amount claimed is barred by limitation, as the same is due more than three years - HELD THAT - The provisions of Section 42 of the IBC, 2016, stipulate that a Creditor may appeal to the Adjudicating Authority against the decision of the Liquidator either accepting or rejecting the claim within 14 days of receipt of the decision. The time period fixed appears to be mandatory for filing the appeal, and therefore the delay of 175 days cannot be condoned. Even otherwise, the cause shown in filing the appeal with the delay of 175 days does not appear to be a sufficient for seeking condonation of delay, as no medical certificate of any ailment is placed on record. The reasons given are general in nature and not supported with any documentary evidence. Therefore, no case is made out for condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the appeal under the Provisions of Section 42 of the I B Code, 2016. The rejection of claim stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Claim rejection by the Liquidator based on limitation period. 2. Request for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the rejection of claim. 3. Assessment of the adequacy of reasons for delay in filing the appeal. 4. Consideration of the provisions of Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Analysis: 1. The first issue pertains to the rejection of the claim by the Liquidator due to being barred by the limitation period. The Applicant contended that the claim was acknowledged in the Financial Statement for the year ending 31.03.2017, which included his claim, and thus filed his claim within the limitation period. However, the Liquidator argued that the claim was time-barred as the last demand was made in 2013, and the present appeal, filed in 2018, was beyond the stipulated time under the I&B Code. 2. The second issue involves the Applicant's request for condonation of the 175-day delay in filing the appeal against the rejection of the claim. The Liquidator opposed the condonation, citing the strict 14-day timeframe under Section 42 of the I&B Code for filing an appeal. The Tribunal found the delay substantial and not adequately justified, as no medical certificate or concrete evidence supporting the delay was presented. 3. The third issue focused on assessing the adequacy of the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the reasons cited were general and lacked documentary evidence or medical certificates to substantiate the delay. The Applicant's failure to take legal action for several years and the delayed filing of the claim were significant factors contributing to the dismissal of the appeal. 4. Lastly, the Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 42 of the I&B Code, which mandate a 14-day period for filing an appeal against the decision of the Liquidator. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of this timeframe and concluded that the delay in this case could not be condoned due to insufficient cause and lack of supporting evidence. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for condonation of delay and against the rejection of the claim, citing the failure to meet the statutory requirements under the I&B Code and the lack of compelling reasons or evidence to justify the delay in filing the appeal.
|
