9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 503 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyEntitlement for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act - exclusion of period during pendency of Writ Petition and SLP was pending - Sufficient grounds exists to condone the delay or not - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority has referred to earlier order dated 11.10.2023 where Adjudicating Authority expressed its prima facie opinion with regard to limitation as well as on the default. When the Adjudicating Authority has granted time to the Respondent to file reply, it is always open for the Corporate Debtor to raise all issues including the issue of limitation and the issue of default - the prima facie view which was expressed by the Adjudicating Authority shall not come in the way of the Adjudicating Authority in deciding the issue after hearing the Corporate Debtor who is permitted to file reply. We see no reason to entertain the appeal filed against the order dated 28.11.2023. Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved: Appeal against two orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in CP (IB) No.239/CHD/HRY/2023, Delay Condonation Application, Entitlement for benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority regarding limitation, Prima facie order passed on 11.10.2023, Direction to file reply, Issue of maintainability regarding limitation of the petition.
The Appellate Tribunal heard the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 390-391 of 2024 filed by the Corporate Debtor challenging two orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority in a Section 7 application filed by the Union Bank of India on 11.10.2023. A Delay Condonation Application was filed, with the Appeal challenging both orders dated 11.10.2023 and 28.11.2023. The Appellant contended that the period during the pendency of a Writ Petition and SLP should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Regarding the timeline, the Appeal against the order dated 11.10.2023 was deemed barred by time, while the Appeal against the order dated 28.11.2023 was filed within the condonable period of 15 days. The Tribunal dismissed one Appeal as time-barred and found grounds to condone the delay in the other. On the merits, the Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to direct the Appellant to file a reply when the application was beyond the time limit. The question of limitation was raised as a jurisdictional fact. The Adjudicating Authority's order of 28.11.2023 directed the Respondent to file a reply regarding the issue of maintainability due to limitation, which was prima facie decided in an earlier order. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent could raise all issues, including limitation, when filing a reply. The Tribunal disposed of one Appeal based on the above observations, emphasizing that all issues, including limitation, should be decided after hearing the Corporate Debtor. A request to decide the limitation issue as a preliminary matter was rejected by the Tribunal.
|
