2023 (7) TMI 1184 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient reason for delay present or not - ex-parte order - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Section 61(1) provides a statutory right to any person who is aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority. Section 61(2) prescribes a period of 30 days within which the appeal under Section 61(1) is to be filed before the Appellate Authority, however, Section 61(2) proviso further provides for a period of 15 days for the purpose of extension of time in case the Applicant is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority that there was a sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Authority in time with the appeal but in no case the period of 15 days can further be extended. Whether there is a sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant for the purpose of condoning the delay? - HELD THAT - Although the limitation to challenge the impugned order started w.e.f. 03.03.2022 but even if it is presumed that the Appellant was pursuing its other remedy to challenge the order of exparte itself and had remained unsuccessful till the Hon ble Supreme Court when its Civil Appeal was also dismissed on 06.04.2023 and the period of limitation is to be counted from 06.04.2023, the period of 30 days for the purpose of filing of this appeal had expired on 06.05.2023. If 15 days more are added which are prescribed under Section 61(2) proviso then the period of 45 days would have expired on 21.05.2023 whereas the present appeal has been filed on 22.05.2023, even after the expiry of period of 15 days as well which cannot be condoned in any manner. Looking from any another angle, even if it is taken then that the appeal has been filed on 15th day of the extended period of 15 days even then there is no sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant as to why it had taken exactly 45 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 03.03.2022. The reasons are conspicuous by its absence especially when the Appellant is a Bank who had huge machinery at its disposal for the purpose of preparing the appeal and filing the same within the statutory period of 30 days. There are no reason to interfere in this application because of the absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay to the satisfaction - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal challenges an order allowing an application by the Liquidator after the Appellant was proceeded against ex-parte. The Appellant seeks condonation of a 400-day delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 1: Ex-Parte Order and Condonation of Delay
The appeal challenges the order passed against the Appellant ex-parte, allowing the Liquidator's application. The Appellant filed the appeal with a request for condonation of a 400-day delay. The Appellant pursued other remedies up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, leading to the delay. The Appellant argued that the delay falls within the extended period provided under Section 61 of the Code.

Legal Analysis 1:
The Appellant sought to challenge the ex-parte order and the Liquidator's application approval. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to pursuing remedies up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the 400-day delay. The statutory provision under Section 61 of the Code allows for a 30-day period for filing an appeal, extendable by a maximum of 15 days. The Appellant's delay exceeded this limit, rendering it uncondonable under the law.

Legal Analysis 2:
The Appellant's argument for condonation of delay was considered in light of the statutory provisions and case law. Despite the Appellant's efforts to challenge the ex-parte order through various legal avenues, the delay in filing the appeal was not justified. The Appellant, being a Bank with ample resources, failed to provide a valid reason for the 400-day delay. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the absence of sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.

Separate Judgment:
In a separate judgment, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision, emphasizing the lack of sufficient cause for the delay. As a result, the appeal was not considered duly constituted and was consequently dismissed.

This summary provides a detailed analysis of the issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the challenge to the ex-parte order, the request for condonation of delay, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.