2023 (11) TMI 828 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - whether the delay of 46th day can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal? - HELD THAT - It is well settled that if the appeal is not filed within the period of limitation prescribed and a delay has occurred a right would vest in the other side and for the purposes of condonation of delay a plausible excuse much less sufficient cause has to be made which may satisfy the conscious of the Appellate Authority. In the present case, however, the appellant has given the reason that the appeal within 30 days (prescribed period) could not be filed and also till the last day of extended period (15th day) could not be filed i.e. after considering the entire period of 45 days, because the appellant was in consultation with its Counsel and internal management with respect to the impugned order and its ramifications. The issue is as to whether both the things that is consultation with the Counsel and internal management was within the control of the appellant or beyond it. The appellant has made a totally unbelievable and lame excuse for the purposes of seeking condonation of delay which does not inspire confidence at all and shall not fall within the definition of a cause much less sufficient. Thus, looking from any angle, it is not a case in which interference is called for the purposes of condonation of delay and therefore, the application is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the sufficiency of cause for seeking condonation of delay.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 15 days. The appellant cited consultation with Counsel and internal management as the reason for the delay. However, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days and the extended period of 15 days. The Appellate Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that only a delay of up to 15 days can be condoned. The Tribunal found the appellant's reason for delay as consultation with Counsel and internal management to be insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Sufficiency of Cause for Condonation:
The appellant's reason for delay was deemed inadequate by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that a plausible excuse or sufficient cause must be presented for condonation of delay. The appellant's claim of being in consultation with Counsel and internal management was considered to be within their control and not a justifiable reason for the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the excuse provided did not meet the standard of a sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.

Separate Judgement by the Judges:
The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal, with no separate judgments issued by the judges. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the appeal itself, stating that the delay was not justifiable and did not warrant interference.