9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 135 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCondonation of 493 days delay in filing the appeal - period of moratorium during which the Appellant was under moratorium has to be excluded giving the benefit of under Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or not - HELD THAT - The case before the Hon ble Supreme Court in NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VERSUS MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED 2022 (5) TMI 1123 - SUPREME COURT was a case where a benefit of Section 60(6) was extended to the Corporate Debtor and the Resolution Applicant in respect to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case before the Hon ble Supreme Court was not a case for limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Code and the Court was concerned with the benefit of Section 60(6) of the Code in proceedings under 1996 Act - The Supreme Court held that Section 60(6) of the IBC does contemplate exclusion of the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of corporate debtor in regard to a proceeding as contemplated therein at the hands of the corporate debtor. The present appeal is filed under section 61(1) of the Code with delay of 493 days. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 61(2) of the Code proviso is only 15 days. The delay of 493 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned - Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Analysis: The appeal sought condonation of a 493-day delay in filing against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31st August, 2021. The Appellant argued that the moratorium period from 15.01.2020 to 23.12.2022 should be excluded under Section 60(6) of the Code. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against a subsidiary of the Appellant during this period. The Appellant relied on judgments to support their claim for exclusion of the moratorium period from the limitation for filing the appeal. The Adjudicating Authority's order directed the acceptance of Respondent No.1's claim, prompting the appeal under Section 61 of the Code. The Appellant contended that the moratorium period should be excluded from the limitation period for filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that the benefit of Section 60(6) of the Code, which excludes the moratorium period from limitation, was not applicable in this case. The Tribunal highlighted the purpose of Section 60(6) to protect Corporate Debtors and those initiating actions against them during the moratorium. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited' to emphasize the exclusion of the moratorium period for Corporate Debtors. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's judgment was specific to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not applicable to the present case of appealing under Section 61 of the Code. Despite the Appellant's arguments, the Tribunal could not condone the 493-day delay in filing the appeal under Section 61(1) of the Code due to the limited 15-day condonation provision under Section 61(2). Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the memo of appeal was rejected with no order as to costs.
|
