9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Rules of Limitation, prescribe that a Remedy, can be exercised, only upto a certain point of time and not subsequently / later, as the case may be. In reality, the Litigants / Parties / Stakeholders, are to be diligent, and they are not to be an indolent persons, and not to adopt a careless and a negligent attitude, keeping in mind of the fact that Speed is the gist of the I B Code. 2016. This Tribunal, taking note of the fact that in the present case, the delay, that has occasioned in preferring the instant Appeal, is 79 days, which is beyond the specified period, contemplated under Section 61 of the I B Code, 2016 - Appeal dismissed. - IA No. 166 of 2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 46 of 2023 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed, and the Petition / Application , was Closed , long time back, due to non-compliance of the Adjudicating Authority s directions, by the 1st Respondent . 4. Further, the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 46 of 2023, was filed before the Office of the Registry of this Tribunal , on 10.01.2023. As per Section 61 (1) of the I B Code, 2016, any Person , Aggrieved by the Order of the Adjudicating Authority , may prefer an Appeal , to the Appellate Tribunal , within 30 days , from the date of passing of the Order , i.e., on or before 28.12.2022. But, due to the intervening Holidays for Christmas and New Year , the Petitioner / Appellant , could not file the instant Appeal , within time and a delay of 15 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As far as the present case is concerned, there is a delay of more than 30 + 15 = 45 days (being the outer limit) and precisely, the delay works out to 79 days (and not 15 days , as computed by the Petitioner / Appellant ), which in the considered opinion of this Tribunal , has no power to condone the same. 8. Conversely, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 / Liquidator, points out that the Liquidation Order , in the instant case, was passed on 09.09.2022 and further that, the delay , in the instant case, is more than the condonable period , and as such, the Petition , is liable to be dismissed . 9. This Tribunal , worth recalls and recollects the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 March 2020. However, the mandate of the law is to impose an obligation on the appellant to apply for a certified copy once the order was pronounced by the NCLT on 31 December 2019, by virtue of Section 61(2) of the IBC read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. In the event the appellant was correct in his assertion that a correct copy of the order was not available until 20 March 2020, the appellant would not have received a certified copy in spite of the application till such date and accordingly received the benefit of the suo motu order of this Court which came into effect on 15 March 2020. However, in the absence of an application for a certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation much prior to the suo motu direction of this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (30 + 15) period, prescribed under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In reality, there has occasioned a delay of 1027 days in preferring the instant Comp App (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.209/2022 , which in the considered opinion of this Tribunal is not to be condoned, as there is no power enjoined upon the Appellate Authority (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period , enunciated under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Looking at from any angle, and also keeping in mind the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan V SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. Ors., reported in (2022) 2 SCC at Page 244 Spl. Pages 257 and 265, this Tribunal holds that IA/460/2022 seeking to condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Sagufa Ahmed , in the present case, at best Appellant can claim that period of limitation did not start running till he applied for certified copy of the order i.e. till 21.01.2019. The Appeals have been filed on the strength of certified copy of the judgment which was applied on 29.07.2021 which certified copy of the Application is claimed by the Appellant after more than three years of the delivery of the judgment whereas in Sagufa Ahmed's case certified copy of the judgment was applied within 27 days from the delivery of judgment. We are of the view the Appellant is not entitled to rely on the judgment of Sagufa Ahmed's case in the facts of the present case. In any view of the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
