9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1140 - AT - IBCCondonation of 26 days delay in filing the Appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - admission of Section 95 Application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) against the Appellant, Sanjay Jain - whether the Appellant has made out the case for condonation of 26 days delay as prayed in the Application? - HELD THAT - Law is well settled that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 15 days. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Spot Exchange Limited. Vs. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Limited, 2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT , has held that Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days. The submission of the Appellant for explaining the delay is on the basis that Appellant came to know about the Order only on 30.03.2024, hence from 30.03.2024, the Appeal filed on 22.04.2024 is within time. Limitation for filing an Appeal begins from the date when the Order is pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority. In the present case, Order was delivered on 26.02.2024. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat Power Limited Ors., 2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT (LB) , had laid down about commencement of limitation for filing the Appeal had noted the difference between the Statutory Scheme under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that omission of the words from the date on which a copy of the Order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved from Section 421(3) to Section 61(2) are not mere omission and power to condone the delay is slightly circumscribed and conditioned upon showing sufficient cause. In the case of AARYAN PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KLOWIN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 (8) TMI 1551 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , even after substituted service, Plaintiff obtained fresh summons of service which was returned unserved and when the summons were pending suit was transferred into the list of undefended case which were the reasons for allowing the Application by the Hon ble High Court. The said Judgment was also on its own fact. The above Judgment does not help the Appellant for condonation of delay as prayed in the present Appeal. The Application for condonation of delay of 26 days is rejected - Memo of Appeal is also rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of substituted service of notice. 3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay beyond the statutory period. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The primary issue was whether the Appellant made a case for condoning a 26-day delay in filing the appeal. The Appellant argued that the delay should be condoned as the appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the order, which was acquired on 30.03.2024. However, the Tribunal held that the limitation for filing an appeal begins from the date the order is pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority, which was 26.02.2024 in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and thus, it could not condone the 26-day delay. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "National Spot Exchange Limited. Vs. Anil Kohli" to support its conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to condone delays exceeding 15 days. 2. Validity of Substituted Service of Notice: The Appellant contended that the notice in the Section 95 application was not properly served, as it was sent to an outdated address, and the Appellant was unaware of the proceedings. The Appellant argued that the bank was aware that the address was no longer valid and that the substituted service via newspaper publication was invalid as there was no basis to suggest the Appellant was avoiding service. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had directed substituted service after notices sent to the Appellant's last known address were returned unserved. The Tribunal found that the substituted service was adequately performed through newspaper publications, and the Adjudicating Authority had set the Appellant ex-parte after being satisfied with the service. 3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to Condon Delay Beyond the Statutory Period: The Tribunal reiterated that its jurisdiction to condone delay is strictly limited to 15 days beyond the 30-day appeal period, as per the statutory framework of the IBC. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in "V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Limited & Ors." which clarified that the omission of the phrase "from the date on which a copy of the order is made available" in Section 61(2) indicates the legislature's intent to enforce strict timelines to facilitate timely resolution under the IBC. The Tribunal emphasized that this statutory limitation on condoning delays is a consistent legislative signal to encourage proactive litigation and timely appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the application for condonation of the 26-day delay in filing the appeal could not be entertained due to the statutory limitation on its jurisdiction. Consequently, the memo of appeal was also rejected. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limited scope for judicial discretion in condoning delays under the IBC framework.
|
