9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 417 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApplication for Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form C dismissed - the Claim was filed belatedly by the Applicant after the expiry of 90th day on 06.08.2022 - whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim together with the delay in filing the Application before the Adjudicating Authority? HELD THAT - A brief perusal of the material on record shows that the CIRP commenced on 21.03.2022 a public announcement was made on 25.03.2022 the last date for filing of the Claims was 04.04.2022 the expiry of 90 days is 19.06.2022 whereas the Appellant had filed the Claim before the RP on 07.08.2022 which is indeed the 139th day of the commencement of the CIRP. The ground taken by the Counsel for the Appellant that it was initially filed under Form B as an Operational Creditor which was rejected vide email communication dated 03.08.2022 and thereafter the Appellant had resubmitted her Claim under Form C on 07.08.2022 does not strengthen or substantiate her case as the timelines given under IBC are to be strictly adhered to and any latches on behalf of the Appellant in filing the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay. Moreover keeping in view the aforenoted dates it is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the Claim Form is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the Appellant approached the Adjudicating Authority vide I.A.1589/22 with a further delay of 100 days and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking legal advise which the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a sufficient cause for the delay . Reliance placed on Puneet Kaur 2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI in support of his case that the NCLAT Principal Bench condoned the delay of the Homebuyers in filing their Claims . The facts in that matter are distinguishable as the case relates to Homebuyers where there were Builder Buyer Agreements ( BBA ) and it was held that rightfully some provisions in the Plan/submission of Claims are to be made for the genuine Homebuyers. This decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The main issue in this appeal is whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim together with the delay in filing the Application before the Adjudicating Authority. Comprehensive details of the judgment: Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in filing the Claim The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Impugned Order dismissing the Application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim under Form - C. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application citing lack of proper grounds for the delay, following the principles laid down in the case of 'Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.' The Appellant argued that the delay was not willful and the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the legal arguments presented. The Appellant also contended that the delay was of short duration and should have been condoned. However, the Adjudicating Authority upheld the dismissal of the Application. Issue 2: Classification of Claim as Financial Debt The Appellant claimed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to recognize the Claim as Financial Debt, arguing that the unsecured loan against payment of interest falls within the ambit of Financial Debt. The Appellant highlighted that the delay in filing the Claim as a Financial Creditor was not willful and the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on previous judgments was misplaced. The Appellant cited relevant cases to support the consideration of belated Claims by the Tribunal. Assessment: Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Appellant's reasons for the delay, such as seeking legal advice and changes in management, were not substantial grounds for condonation. The Tribunal noted the strict timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and emphasized the importance of adhering to these timelines. The Tribunal distinguished the Appellant's case from previous judgments cited and concluded that the explanation provided by the Appellant was not sufficient to justify the delay. Ultimately, the Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Separate Judgment by Judges: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
