9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1083 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCondonation of delay of 52 days in filing the Appeal - Approval of Resolution Plan - Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - Admittedly this Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22 October 2019, and the Appeal was filed on 29 January 2020 with an Application for condonation of delay of 52 days. The present Appeal has been filed 98 days after passing the impugned order, i.e., a delay of 68 days, beyond 30 days, prescribed under Section 61 (2) of the IBC - that in fact, it is an admitted case of the Appellant that the present Appeal has been filed with the delay of 52 days and thus, the Appellant itself has duly admitted that the Appeal is beyond the condonable period of Limitation under Section 61 (2) of the I B Code. Admittedly the present Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22 October 2019. Thus, the preposterous averments of the Appellant seeking to justify the delay in filing the Appeal do not render the present Appeal to be within Limitation. Accordingly, the present Appeals suffers from delay beyond the condonable period of 15 days under the proviso of Section 61 (2) of the IB code, hence liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The instant Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22 October 2019, presented on 29 January 2020. Therefore, at the least, this Appeal is filed 98 days after passing of the impugned order, i.e. with a delay of 68 is beyond 30 days prescribed under Section 61 (2) of the IBC Code. Considering the statutory provision of Section 61 (2) of the IBC, this Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 15 days after the prescribed 30 days provided for filing an Appeal. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the period from passing of the impugned order dated 22 October 2019 to the order dated 19 December 2019 should be considered a continuous cause of action is without any basis and not sustainable. Application rejected.
List of Issues:
1. Approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Applicability of the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. Implementation of the Resolution Plan and its impact on the appeal. 5. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. Detailed Analysis: 1. Approval of the Resolution Plan: The appeal emanates from the impugned order dated 22 October 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, approving the Resolution Plan of Corporate Debtor Maruti Koatsu Cylinders Limited under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant contended that the order erroneously recorded certain findings, which were disputed through a letter dated 26 November 2019. 2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant filed the appeal on 29 January 2020, along with an application for condonation of delay of 52 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant argued that the certified copy of the impugned order was provided on 19 November 2019, and the appeal was filed within the limitation period considering the continuous cause of action. The appellant further contended that no prejudice would be caused if the delay was condoned. 3. Applicability of the Limitation Period: The respondent argued that the appeal was filed 98 days after the impugned order, with a delay of 68 days beyond the prescribed 30 days under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The respondent cited several Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the Appellate Tribunal cannot condone delays beyond 15 days after the prescribed 30 days. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in National Spot Exchange Limited v Anil Kohli, which held that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delays exceeding 15 days from the 30-day period. 4. Implementation of the Resolution Plan: Respondent No. 2, the successful resolution applicant, stated that the Resolution Plan had been fully implemented, including payments to financial creditors and changes in the Board of Directors and shareholding pattern. The respondent invested a significant sum towards the revival of the Corporate Debtor's business, asserting that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible delay period and should be dismissed. 5. Jurisdiction to Condon Delays: The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and Supreme Court judgments, concluding that it had no power to condone delays beyond the 15-day period after the prescribed 30 days under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The Tribunal emphasized that the IBC's special nature requires strict adherence to the limitation periods to ensure timely resolution of insolvency proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed 98 days after the impugned order, with a delay of 68 days beyond the prescribed 30 days. Given the statutory provisions, the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay beyond the 15-day period. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Order: IA 75 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 286 of 2020 is dismissed as time-barred. No order as to costs.
|
