9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 331 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking to Condone Delay of 14 days in filing the Appeal - Sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - It is seen that the Respondent has at least offered the index of the typed set of papers annexed to the Appeal before NCLAT and the Application filed before NCLT to support his contention. On the other hand, the Appellant has not shown a single document which as per his claim took a long time to trace and collect. This makes to come to the conclusion that sufficient cause has not been demonstrated to merit condonation of delay of 14 days beyond the 30-day period. The Appellant has cited a number of decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court to support his plea that a liberal approach be adopted for condonation of delay even in matters arising under the IBC. In this matter, it is said that the objective of IBC is to ensure timely resolution of insolvency and accordingly provisions have been put in place including strict timelines for the legal and administrative processes and therefore, adopting a liberal approach, needless to say, will defeat the objectives of the Code and will run counter to the view expressed in V NAGARAJAN VERSUS SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD. ORS. 2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT . The Company Appeal is not entertained , and hereby Rejected .
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, the interpretation of the limitation period under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the demonstration of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. Condonation of Delay: The Appellant filed an Appeal against the Impugned Order of NCLT, Kochi, along with 3 Interlocutory Applications seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal dismissed the Application seeking Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal, as it was filed after the expiry of the prescribed time limit under section 61(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Appeal to Supreme Court: The Appellant appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of NCLAT, which remitted the proceedings back for fresh decision on the limitation period and demonstration of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court set aside the Impugned Order of NCLAT and directed a re-examination of the Appeal within the framework of section 61 of IBC, 2016. Interpretation of Limitation Period: The Appellant contended that the limitation period for filing the Appeal should commence from the date he received the Certified Copy of the order, which was after the date of uploading. However, the Respondent argued that the limitation period should start from the date of pronouncement of the Impugned Order, as per established legal principles. Demonstration of 'Sufficient Cause': The Respondent challenged the Appellant's claim of delay due to difficulties in retrieving old documents, stating that all relevant documents were already filed with NCLT. The Appellant's reasons for delay were deemed general and unconvincing, leading to a lack of demonstration of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal emphasized the objective of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to ensure timely resolution of insolvency, highlighting the importance of strict timelines. Despite the Appellant citing decisions advocating a liberal approach for condonation of delay, the Tribunal upheld the strict interpretation of the limitation period under the Code. Conclusion: After examining the contentions of both parties and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the Appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under section 61(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant failed to demonstrate a 'Sufficient Cause' for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the Application seeking condonation of delay and the rejection of the Company Appeal.
|
