9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o support his contention. On the other hand, the Appellant has not shown a single document which as per his claim took a long time to trace and collect. This makes to come to the conclusion that sufficient cause has not been demonstrated to merit condonation of delay of 14 days beyond the 30-day period. The Appellant has cited a number of decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court to support his plea that a liberal approach be adopted for condonation of delay even in matters arising under the IBC. In this matter, it is said that the objective of IBC is to ensure timely resolution of insolvency and accordingly provisions have been put in place including strict timelines for the legal and administrative processes and therefore, adopting a liberal app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appeal has been filed on 09.02.2023 after the expiry of 45 days period, from the date of Judgment / Order of the Adjudicating Authority / NCLT, Kochi Bench and that, the outer limit of time period granted under section 61(2) of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been breached, this Tribunal , dismissed the IA No.383/2023 seeking Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal and also dismissed the main Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No.99/2023, as time barred. 3. The Appellant appealed against the order of NCLAT dated 24.04.2023 in Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court after hearing the case and observing made that there is a lack of clarity, regarding the date of uploading of the Impugned Order of NCLT, Kochi Bench on its website ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reasons as under : - i) The documents to be cited and attached to the appeal paper book relate to the year 2008 and they had to be traced which took time. ii) The Appellant was staying in a remote hilly tract in Idukki district far from the Counsel s place and office and because of old age and age-related ailments the task of contacting the counsel and supplying him with relevant documents took time. He states that the delay was only due to above, is inadvertent and hence may be condoned. 6. The Respondent contends that the Impugned Order was pronounced by NCLT, Kochi Bench on 23.12.2022, that the application IA(IBC) No.203/KOB/2022 in CP(IBC) No.18/KOB/2021 was listed for hearing on the same date at serial no.7 in the cause list, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Civil Appeals No. 7467-7468 of 2023, in the matter of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ors, especially para-19 to state that this decision departs from the decision made in V. Nagarajan case and that the date of uploading of the judgement should be the crucial date and not the date of pronouncement of the judgement for the purpose of calculating the limitation period. He has further stated that the delay to be condoned is within the outer limit of 15 days and is condonable in the light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in decisions in the matter of Sanket Kumar Agarwal Vs APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2023 SCC Online SC 976], Seshnath Singh Anr. Vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Ltd. Anr. , [2021 (7) SCC 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case, the application was listed for hearing on 23.12.2022 and the order was pronounced on the same day which is proved on the basis of the fact that the order copy was digitally signed by Member (Judicial) at 3.25 PM on 23.12.2022 and this has been acknowledged by the Appellant. Therefore, it will not be possible to deviate from the decision in V. Nagarajan case especially when he has not applied for a certified copy within the limitation period. 10. Even if his plea that the Order was made ready in the afternoon only, that the next 2 days were holidays and therefore, he could have reacted to the Order only from 26.12.2022 at the earliest and therefore, the limitation period should be computed from 26.12.2022 is to be accepted , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e timely resolution of insolvency and accordingly provisions have been put in place including strict timelines for the legal and administrative processes and therefore, adopting a liberal approach, needless to say, will defeat the objectives of the Code and will run counter to the view expressed in V. Nagarajan case and other similar cases. 12. In view of the above, this Tribunal , comes to the conclusion that the Appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit as stipulated in section 61(2) of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code 2016 and the Appellant has not demonstrated a Sufficient Cause within the ambit of the said section to enable this Tribunal , to exercise its discretion to condone the delay not exceeding 15 days. Accordingly, the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
