2024 (12) TMI 1201 - AT - IBC

Condonation of delay of 156 days in re-filing the appeal - sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal presented or not - HELD THAT - From the series of events as enumerated, it is noted the Appellant has not been vigilant enough in prosecuting the Appeal which was initially e-filed on 01.06.2023 and finally refiled on 22.11.2023 after a huge delay of 156 days. The explanation given by the Appellant is found to be not sufficient to condone the delay. The Respondent has also relied upon various judgments of Hon ble Apex Court. The adherence to procedural timelines has been emphasised again and again by Hon ble Apex Court and also this Appellate Tribunal in various judgments - Reliance placed in COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS SATISH KUMAR GUPTA OTHERS 2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that ' on the facts of a given case, if it can be shown to the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal under the Code that only a short period is left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330 days, and that it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the corporate debtor be put back on its feet instead of being sent into liquidation and that the time taken in legal proceedings is largely due to factors owing to which the fault cannot be ascribed to the litigants before the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal, the delay or a large part thereof being attributable to the tardy process of the Adjudicating Authority and/or the Appellate Tribunal itself, it may be open in such cases for the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to extend time beyond 330 days.' The issue of timelines has been further elaborated by Hon ble Apex Court in EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED ANR., KUNDAN CARE PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS MR AMIT GUPTA AND ORS. AND SEROCO LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAVI KAPOOR RP FOR ARYA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMTIED ORS. 2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that ' Any judicial creation of a procedural or substantive remedy that is not envisaged by the statute would not only violate the principle of separation of powers, but also run the risk of altering the delicate coordination that is designed by IBC framework and have grave implications on the outcome of the CIRP, the economy of the country and the lives of the workers and other allied parties who are statutorily bound by the impact of a resolution or liquidation of a corporate debtor.' All above judicial pronouncements don t support the case of the Appellant. IBC proceedings are time bound. No indulgence can be given for condoning such long delays which do not have sufficient casue. It appears that the Appellants attempts are to hinder and restrict the resolution process from attaining finality. Under these circumstances of 156 days of delay in refiling and also supported by judicial precedents and provisions of the Code, re-filing delay cannot be condoned. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
3. Compliance with statutory timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Re-filing the Appeal:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the delay of 156 days in re-filing the appeal by the appellant. The appeal was initially filed on 01.06.2023, and defects were notified on 12.06.2023. The appellant cited various reasons for the delay, including the counsel's travel, summer vacations, logistical challenges due to the clerk's absence, and issues with the courier service. The appeal was eventually re-filed on 22.11.2023. The tribunal noted that the appellant had not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal, which contributed to the significant delay.

2. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of the 156-day delay in re-filing the appeal, arguing that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The tribunal examined the reasons provided by the appellant, including the counsel's travel, the unavailability of the clerk, and issues with the affidavit's courier. However, the tribunal found these explanations insufficient to justify the delay. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time, as required by Section 61 of the IBC. The tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and rejected the application for condonation of delay.

3. Compliance with Statutory Timelines under the IBC:
The tribunal underscored the statutory mandate under the IBC to adhere to strict timelines for filing appeals. Section 61 of the IBC prescribes a 30-day period for filing appeals, with a possible extension of 15 days if sufficient cause is shown. The tribunal referred to various judicial precedents emphasizing the necessity of timely, effective, and efficient resolution of insolvency proceedings. The tribunal cited the "Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta" and "Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Amit Gupta" cases, which stress the importance of procedural timelines in insolvency proceedings. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's lack of diligence and the absence of sufficient cause for the delay warranted the rejection of the condonation application.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and related applications due to the appellant's failure to adhere to the statutory timelines and lack of sufficient cause for the delay in re-filing. The judgment reinforces the critical importance of compliance with procedural timelines in insolvency proceedings under the IBC.