2022 (7) TMI 836 - SCH - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Power of NCLT to condone the delay beyond 15 days - Condonation of Delay of 27 days in filing for restoration was admitted - restoration of petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - time limitation - HELD THAT - The orders of condonation of delay, restoration of the original petition and dismissal of the baseless appeal are sought to be questioned in this appeal before this Court. The grounds urged are essentially to the effect that only the application of condonation of delay was registered and the Tribunal had erred in allowing both the applications by its order dated 23.12.2021. It is also sought to be contended that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days - Both these grounds carry no substance and the appeal could only be dismissed at the threshold. There are no logic in the argument that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the appellant would refer to the prescriptions in Section 61 of the Code, which provide for filing of appeal within 30 days and limiting the period for condonation of delay in filing the appeal to 15 days. It is beyond comprehension as to how such a prescription as regards the period of filing the appeal and the limited period for condonation of delay in filing such appeal could be imported for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration - No other provision has been brought to our notice which limits or curtails the powers of the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. It needs hardly any reiteration that the rules or procedure are essentially intended to serve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of their matters. No case for interference is made out - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to restoration orders under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Condonation of Delay in filing for restoration; Tribunal's power to condone delay beyond 15 days.

Challenge to Restoration Orders under Section 9:
The appellant, a corporate debtor, sought to challenge the orders passed for restoration of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, had dismissed the application filed by the respondent for restoration, which was later granted through two applications filed on 07.01.2021. The Tribunal's decision was further upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant's grounds for challenge were primarily related to the registration of the application for restoration and the Tribunal's alleged error in allowing both applications. However, the Supreme Court found these grounds to be lacking in substance and dismissed the appeal.

Condonation of Delay:
The respondent had filed two applications on 07.01.2021 for condonation of a 27-day delay in filing for restoration and for restoration of the main petition. The Tribunal granted these prayers through a short order dated 26.10.2021. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing both applications and could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days. The appellant referred to Section 61 of the Code, which provides for a 30-day period for filing an appeal and limits the period for condonation of delay in filing the appeal to 15 days. However, the Supreme Court held that such a prescription regarding the period for filing an appeal could not be imported for considering the prayer for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration. No provision was found to limit the Tribunal's power to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. The Court emphasized that rules and procedures are meant to serve the cause of justice, not to punish parties, and dismissed the appeal on this ground.

Tribunal's Power to Condone Delay Beyond 15 Days:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days. However, the Supreme Court found no logic in this argument, stating that there was no provision limiting or curtailing the Tribunal's power to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. The Court reiterated that rules and procedures are designed to serve justice and not to penalize parties. The argument that the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay beyond 15 days was dismissed, and the appeal was deemed to be devoid of substance and subsequently dismissed by the Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the restoration orders under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, emphasizing the Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing for restoration beyond 15 days. The Court highlighted that rules and procedures are intended to serve justice and not punish parties, ultimately finding no grounds for interference in the matter.