2022 (9) TMI 1297 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay of 45 days in filing appeal - Appellant failed to apply for certified copy within 30 days period - it is alleged that the Appeal is barred by time as filed beyond extended time of limitation prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code - Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, when order was passed on 06.05.2022, the period of 30 days expired on 06.06.2022. 15 days period upto which delay is condonable under Section 61(2) also expired upto 20.06.2022. The appeal by the Appellant having been filed on 06.07.2022 is clearly beyond the 45 days - In the present case, certified copy is claimed to be applied by the Appellant on 15.06.2022 i.e. after expiry of limitation. Thus, the present appeal has been filed beyond 45 days from date of the order dated 06.05.2022 and delay of more than 15 days beyond the period of 30 days cannot be condoned by this Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 61(2) of the I B Code. There are no good ground to allow section 5 application filed by the Appellant. Delay condonation application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay Condonation Application under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal against the order dated 06.05.2022. The Appellant claimed that the delay was due to the delay in receiving the certified copy of the order.

2. The Appellant applied for the certified copy on 15.06.2022, after the expiry of the 30-day limitation period. The Respondent argued that the Appellant did not show due diligence in filing the Appeal within the prescribed time frame.

3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of the time required to obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to apply for the certified copy within the limitation period.

4. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that a litigant must exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy promptly after the pronouncement of the order to meet the limitation requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

5. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant's delay in filing the Appeal beyond the 45-day limit could not be condoned. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's argument that the delay was only 9 days, as the delay exceeded 15 days beyond the prescribed period.

6. The Appellant's reliance on a previous judgment where an order was declared void ab-initio due to procedural irregularities was deemed irrelevant in the present case, where the order was pronounced in open court.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Delay Condonation Application, stating that there were no valid grounds to allow the application. As a result, the Memo of Appeal was rejected, upholding the decision to dismiss the Appeal due to the delay in filing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision to dismiss the Delay Condonation Application and reject the Appeal.