9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1278 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCondonation of delay of 15 days (beyond the period of entire 45 days) in filing appeal - delay caused on medical grounds - sufficient cause or not - HELD THAT - As per Section 61(1) any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. As per Section 61(2) every appeal which is to be filed under Section 61(1) has to be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal. As per 61(2) proviso the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time - The present appeal has been filed beyond the period of 45 days i.e. a period of 30 days provided in Section 61(1) and 15 days provided in proviso to Section 61(2). Reliance placed upon two judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited 2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT and National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Mr. Anil Kohli, RP for Dunar Foods Limited 2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that considering the statutory provisions which provide that delay beyond 15 days in preferring the appeal is uncondonable, the same cannot be condoned even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Thus, even if, the Appellant has submitted that a fraud has been played, in so far as, the delay is concerned, it cannot be condoned by this Tribunal because of lack of jurisdiction - The application is thus dismissed and as a consequence of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the main appeal is also dismissed.
Issues:
The appeal against the order admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Issue 1: Appeal against the order admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 The appeal was filed by an ex-director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 20.09.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant sought condonation of a 12-day delay in filing the appeal due to health issues, including heart surgery, vertebral collapse, diabetes, and post-corona complications. The Appellant's counsel argued for the condonation of delay citing genuine health reasons causing the delay. Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal The Counsel for the Respondent contended that the application for condonation of delay was filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days, which includes the initial 30-day period and an additional 15 days. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Respondent's Counsel argued that delays beyond 15 days are not condonable. The Appellate Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the strict timelines for filing appeals and the limited scope for extending the filing period. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed beyond the total period of 45 days allowed under Section 61 of the Code. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in V. Nagarajan case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal emphasized that the special nature of the Code requires parties to act diligently and file appeals within the specified period, with only a limited extension of 15 days upon showing sufficient cause. Referring to the National Spot Exchange Limited case, the Tribunal reiterated that delays beyond 15 days are not condonable, even under Article 142 of the Constitution. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to lack of jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the main appeal. Despite the Appellant's claim of fraud, the Tribunal held that the delay could not be condoned. The Tribunal made no order as to costs in this matter.
|
