2023 (6) TMI 152 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form C - Sufficient cause for delay - whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim together with the delay in filing the Application before the Adjudicating Authority? - HELD THAT - A brief perusal of the material on record shows that the CIRP commenced on 21.03.2022, a public announcement was made on 25.03.2022, the last date for filing of the Claims was 04.04.2022, the expiry of 90 days is 19.06.2022, whereas the Appellant had filed the Claim before the RP on 07.08.2022, which is indeed the 139th day of the commencement of the CIRP. The ground taken by the Counsel for the Appellant that it was initially filed under Form B as an Operational Creditor which was rejected vide email communication dated 03.08.2022, and thereafter the Appellant had resubmitted her Claim under Form C on 07.08.2022, does not strengthen or substantiate her case as the timelines given under IBC are to be strictly adhered to and any latches on behalf of the Appellant in filing, the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay. It is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the Claim Form is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the Appellant approached the Adjudicating Authority, vide I.A.1522/22 with a further delay of 100 days, and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking legal advise, which the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a sufficient cause for the delay. Had there been a substantial ground, the case of N BALAKRISHNAN VERSUS M. KRISHNAMURTHY 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT , could have been applied to the matter on hand. But the fact of the matter is that the Appellant has given no substantial grounds to condone the delay. IBC is a time bound process, which has been repeatedly held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgements and at the cost of repetition, the explanation given by the Appellant herein is neither substantial nor can be construed as a sufficient cause. This Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim together with the delay in filing the Application before the Adjudicating Authority.

Comprehensive details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in filing the Claim
The Appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the Impugned Order dismissing the Application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim under Form - C. The Adjudicating Authority noted that there were no proper grounds given by the Appellant for the delay, and relying on the Supreme Court judgment in 'Esha Bhattacharjee' (2013) 12 SCC 649, held that Condonation of Delay cannot be granted as a matter of course. The Application seeking Condonation of Delay was dismissed.

Issue 2: Grounds for Condonation of Delay
The Appellant argued that the delay in filing the Claim was not willful, and the Adjudicating Authority did not consider the legal arguments presented. The Appellant contended that the delay was short (49 days) compared to an inordinate delay and that the Adjudicating Authority should have exercised inherent powers to condone the delay.

Issue 3: Legal arguments and precedents
The Appellant cited judgments in 'Puneet Kaur' and 'Punjab National Bank Vs. Animesh Mukhopadhyay' to support the argument that belated Claims could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Respondent argued that the decisions relied upon by the Appellant were not relevant to the facts of this case, and the Adjudicating Authority rightly relied on 'Esha Bhattacharjee'.

Assessment:
The Adjudicating Authority found that the Appellant filed the Claim after 125 days from the commencement of CIRP, and the explanation of seeking legal advice was not considered a sufficient cause for the delay. The Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellant failed to provide substantial grounds to condone the delay, emphasizing that IBC is a time-bound process. The Appeal was dismissed based on the lack of substantial grounds for Condonation of Delay.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, including the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, legal precedents cited, and the assessment leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.