9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 568 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyFailure to invite the Public Announcement of the Liquidation Order - Time limitation - HELD THAT - Ordinarily, it is for the Applicant / Appellant, when there has occasioned a delay in preferring a Condone Delay Application in a given Proceeding or an Appeal, to specify / mention the exact number of days of Appeal that had occasioned by computing / calculating the same - It cannot be gainsaid that the ingredients of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is a Hard Taskmaster and the delay that has occurred in the instant case is an exorbitant one, which cannot be condoned by this Tribunal, as the application lacks Bona-fide. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to invite Public Announcement of Liquidation Order leading to delay in preferring claim. 2. Alleged failure to appreciate statutory dues payable by Corporate Debtor. 3. Failure to consider additional properties in the claim. 4. Delay in submission of claim and request for condonation. 5. Calculation of delay period and lack of bona fide in the application. 6. Dismissal of the appeal without costs. Analysis: Issue 1: Failure to invite Public Announcement of Liquidation Order The Appellant challenged the Impugned Order dismissing the IA(IBC)/748/CHE/2021 due to the Liquidator's failure to invite the Public Announcement of the Liquidation Order. The Appellant argued that this failure led to a delay in preferring the claim. However, the Adjudicating Authority found the delay of 672 days in submitting the claim to be devoid of merits and crucial for the time-bound Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) process. Issue 2: Alleged failure to appreciate statutory dues The Appellant contended that the Liquidator failed to recognize the statutory dues payable by the Corporate Debtor under the EPF & MP Act, 1952. The Appellant argued that these dues were reflected in the Corporate Debtor's Books of Accounts. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not find this argument compelling and dismissed the claim. Issue 3: Failure to consider additional properties in the claim The Appellant claimed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the additional properties that should have been included in the claim. The Appellant submitted a Form F with more properties to be accounted for, but this aspect was allegedly overlooked by the Adjudicating Authority. Issue 4: Delay in submission of claim and request for condonation The Appellant sought condonation for the delay in filing the claim, citing factors such as the need for a formal order from the Adjudicating Authority and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Adjudicating Authority, citing the Limitation Act, 1963, found the delay to be exorbitant and lacking bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the claim. Issue 5: Calculation of delay period and lack of bona fide The Adjudicating Authority calculated the delay in submitting the claim as 672 days, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time-bound nature of the IBC process. The Tribunal concurred with this calculation and decision, stating that the delay was significant and could not be condoned due to lack of bona fide. Issue 6: Dismissal of the appeal without costs Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Comp App without costs, aligning with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority. Despite the Appellant's arguments and references to legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the original decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the IBC's procedural requirements and timelines. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, findings, and decisions made in the judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
|
