9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case before the Hon ble Supreme Court was not a case for limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Code and the Court was concerned with the benefit of Section 60(6) of the Code in proceedings under 1996 Act - The Supreme Court held that Section 60(6) of the IBC does contemplate exclusion of the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of corporate debtor in regard to a proceeding as contemplated therein at the hands of the corporate debtor. The present appeal is filed under section 61(1) of the Code with delay of 493 days. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 61(2) of the Code proviso is only 15 days. The delay of 493 days in filing the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be excluded from the period of limitation for filing this appeal. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant in support of the submission, has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) 8 SCC 384 as well as judgment of this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 240 of 2022 decided on 16.09.2022. 6. The order dated 31.08.2021 was passed on the application of Respondent No.1 where the Adjudicating Authority has directed the claim of Respondent No.1, has to be accepted. It is submitted that limitation in filing the appeal under Section 61 of the Code need to be extended for the aforesaid period. Hence, the appeal is within time. 7. Section 61 (1) (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded. 9. Section 60 sub-Section 6 of the Code has been enacted in the Code for a purpose and object. The benefit of limitation has been extended for any suit or application by or against a Corporate Debtor for which an order of moratorium has been made to enable the Corporate Debtor to prosecute any proceeding or any proceeding to be prosecuted against the Corporate Debtor giving the benefit of the period of moratorium for a specific purpose and object. The Object is to protect the Corporate Debtor who is unable to institute proceedings during the moratorium period and object is also to protect those who want to initiate action against the Corporate Debtor who are unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the provision in the contract providing for arbitration, the respondent addressed communication dated 07.06.2016. The appellant sent its reply on 20.7.2016 where it, inter alia, did not consent for either of the names suggested by the respondent and instead proposed to proceed for arbitration through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). On 14.5.2018 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai admitted an application under Section 10 of the IBC and declared the moratorium. On 28.11.2019, a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT. On 25.11.2020, the respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. 11. The Hon ble Supreme Court after considering the Section 60(6) of the Code laid down following in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in by an order under Section 14 does not pose any bar against a suit or an application at the instance of the corporate debtor. The words for which an order of Moratorium has been made under this part is intended to be the point of reference or the premise for the exclusion of the time for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. Besides being the point of reference and being the sine qua non for applying Section 60(6), it also specifies the period of time which will be excluded in computing of the period of limitation. In other words, present an order of Moratorium under Section 14, the entire period of the Moratorium is liable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even in a suit or an application by a corporate de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porate debtor in regard to a proceeding as contemplated therein at the hands of the corporate debtor. 12. The case before the Hon ble Supreme Court was a case where a benefit of Section 60(6) was extended to the Corporate Debtor and the Resolution Applicant in respect to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case before the Hon ble Supreme Court was not a case for limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Code and the Court was concerned with the benefit of Section 60(6) of the Code in proceedings under 1996 Act. 13. The present appeal is filed under section 61(1) of the Code with delay of 493 days. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 61(2) of the Code proviso is only 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
