TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LIMITED [ 2020 (9) TMI 1188 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI] taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court under the Presidency Town Insolvency Act, 1909. Be that as it may, the Applicant who seeks for condonation of delay has to adequately explain to the satisfaction of this Tribunal the 'sufficient cause' and 'reasonableness' for condoning the delay in filing the main Application. It is the cardinal principle of limitation that the Applicant, who seeks to condone the delay, has to explain the delay for each and every day as sought for, more particularly this Tribunal is of the considered view in relation to a proceeding under IBC, 2016 being a proceeding in rem and has an impact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the Applicant submitted that in the course of business, the Corporate Debtor had placed numerous orders upon the Operational Creditor for supply of paints and allied products and pursuant to the same, the Operational Creditor had supplied the materials which were ordered by the Corporate Debtor over a period of time and these invoices were payable within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the same. It was submitted that the Operational Creditor was maintaining a running account in their books of account and as on 31.03.2019, a sum of ₹ 2,32,923/- is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. Hence, it was submitted that the Operational Creditor has issued Demand notice to the Corporate De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Demand Notice. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633 and submitted that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Application to be filed under Section 7 and 9 of IBC, 2016 and further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Anr. Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2019 to submit that the period of limitation for the purpose of filing an Application under Section 7 and 9 was not 12 years and it is in fact only 3 years. 4. The Respondent / Corporate Debtor has filed counter and it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the conduct of the revision petitioner in keeping quiet for over two years only on account of inability to mobilise other petitioner evidences would amount to gross negligence, irresponsible inactive attitude and therefore the petitioner lacks bonafides. Under those circumstances, this Court refused to condone the delay of 797 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. In the above case, the Court also referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (M.K Prasad vs. P. Arumugam) (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 176. (ii) In Sundar Gnanaolivu rep. by his power of attorney agent Mr. Rukmini vs. Rajendran Gnanavolivu, rep. by its power of attorney agent Veina Gnanavalivu 2003 1 Law Weekly 58 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held that an essential pre requisite of exercising discretion to condone the delay is that the Court must record its satisfaction that the explanation of delay was either reasonable or satisfactory. 8. Further, the Applicant has sought for a prayer to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the present Application, however, in the rejoinder, the Applicant has stated that there has been a delay of 79 days in filing the main Application. The Applicant in the present Application in the relief portion has sought to condone a delay of 48 days, however in the rejoinder has sought to condone a delay of 79 days. Hence there seems to be a paradoxical stand being taking by the Applicant in the present Applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|