2021 (9) TMI 986 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay of 12 days in filing appeal - seeking extension of limitation period prescribed under law - Section 61 of the IBC - HELD THAT - The impugned order is pronounced on 03.02.2020. In view of the provisions under Section 61 of the IBC as per prescribed period the Appeal was required to be filed within 30 days till 04.03.2020. However, the Appeal was filed on 29.12.2020 i.e. after a delay of 299 days. As per proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 61 of the IBC, this Tribunal may condone the delay for a period not exceeding 15 days. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has taken shelter of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme court in India in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER extended the limitation period prescribed under law. Admittedly, the MOU which alleged to be forged and fabricated document did not form the basis of any adjudication. Therefore, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that the provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C are not attracted in the facts of this case - there are no flaw in this finding. The Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against the order dismissing the Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
- Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

Analysis:
1. Appeal Against Order under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C:
The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an Application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor, alleging a forged MOU. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, stating that the MOU did not form the basis of adjudication. The Appellant contended that the MOU was fabricated to evade legal debt. The Adjudicating Authority held that no inquiry was required under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The Appellant appealed, arguing that the MOU was crucial. The Respondent claimed the Appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal found the MOU did not influence the decision, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision.

2. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The Appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, citing an extension of limitation by the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the extension did not apply to the Appellant's case, as the limitation had expired before the extended period. The Tribunal dismissed the condonation request, as the Appeal was time-barred by 299 days. Despite hearing arguments on merits, the Tribunal found no flaw in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and dismissed the Appeal both on grounds of limitation and merits.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal against the order under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, as the MOU did not affect the adjudication. The condonation of delay was denied due to the Appeal being time-barred. The decision was based on legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's ruling.