2021 (12) TMI 913 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the instant Appeal - HELD THAT - The Appellants had the knowledge of the impugned order passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in I.A. (IB) No. 601/KB/2020 in C.P. (IB) No. 1635/KB/2018 from the email dated 17.08.2020 sent by the Resolution Professional of Suraj Fabrics Industries Limited (Respondent) way back of 17.08.2020 (Annexure R/2 at page 10 of the Reply Affidavit filed by Respondent) and the instant Appeal has been filed on 03.08.2021 and no sufficient explanation for condonation of delay have been made out in the instant Appeal. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Approval of resolution plan, Condonation of delay, Knowledge of impugned order

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal seeking condonation of a 102-day delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant claimed to have been aggrieved by the order approving the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor under specific sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that they were not a party to the original proceedings before the NCLT, Kolkata, and only became aware of the impugned order and resolution plan after a significant delay. However, the respondent contended that the appeal was actually delayed by more than 356 days, contrary to the appellant's claim of only 102 days.

Approval of Resolution Plan:
The resolution plan submitted by M/s Sponge Sales (India) Private Limited was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% vote and subsequently by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench. The respondent argued that the appellant was aware of the approval of the resolution plan and the related proceedings, as evidenced by various communications and documents sent by the Resolution Professional to the appellant. The respondent highlighted that the appellant had received the approval order and payment intimation via emails, and even a single window application for approvals was filed by the respondent. The respondent claimed that the appellant failed to challenge the impugned order promptly and only filed the appeal at a belated stage.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as the time taken for sending documents to various authorities and the Law Department for comments. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be heard on its merits. However, the respondent contended that the appellant deliberately suppressed facts and misled the tribunal, indicating a lack of merit in the appeal and no grounds for condonation of delay.

Knowledge of Impugned Order:
The tribunal found that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order approving the resolution plan since August 17, 2020, based on communications from the Resolution Professional. The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed on August 3, 2021, without a sufficient explanation for the delay. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing and lack of sufficient grounds for condonation. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely action and knowledge of legal proceedings to maintain the integrity of the appeal process.