9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended that much confidence cannot be reposed to the reason, which has been taken by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay in an Appellate proceedings under Section 42, for the reason being that for the purposes of gratuity and other past service dues, he has already been awarded an amount, under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) to the tune of Rs.3,23,758/- and paid the same to the Appellant in 2022 itself and that would be sufficient enough for the Appellant to meet out the expenditures of preferring the Appeal, before NCLT, Chennai. Hence, the financial crunch which is the ground taken in the Condone Delay Application, cannot to be taken as to be a satisfactory ground for overcoming the embargo of limitation of 14 days, as prescribed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in ID No. 51 / 2014. 3. Whereas in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 231 / 2024, the Appellant has put a challenge to the impugned judgment, whereby the Appeal preferred before the NCLT stood dismissed, with regards to the claim, which he agitated before the Liquidator, on 09.03.2022 and the communication of the Liquidator dated 06.05.2022, informing the Appellant about his partial eligibility to be remitted with the claim and in support thereto, the Appellant had filed an Application for additional documents on 25.06.2022, but, the same was refused to be taken on record. 4. But, since the reason for rejection of both the Appeals being on account of delay in filing of the Appeal, beyond the prescribed period of limitation, under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re invited, the Appellant submitted his claim by way of Form II, on 09.03.2022. 9. The claim, thus raised by the Appellant was considered by the Liquidator and the same was decided on 06.05.2022, stating thereof, that he would be eligible to be paid with the claim of Rs.32,62,132/-. 10. Being aggrieved as against the partial rejection of his claim by the Liquidator by an order of 06.05.2022, the Appellant has preferred an Appeal, before NCLT, Chennai, under Section 42 of the I B Code, 2016, on 23.09.2023. 11. The Appeal against the order of Liquidator is contemplated under Section 42 of I B Code, 2016, which specifically contemplates that the Appeals under Section 42, could be preferred within 14 days, from the date of the decision of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, since having been preferred belatedly, after the lapse of about 466 days in filing the Appeal. 16. It is seen that the reason which has been taken by the Appellant in the application for seeking condonation of delay is exclusively on account of the financial crunch which the Appellant contends without evidence to the contrary that he suffered from financial crisis, because of which he could not approach the Tribunal, prior to 25.09.2023. 17. The learned Adjudicating Authority after considering the plea taken by the Appellant in the Condone Delay Application, had rejected the same on the basis of the guidelines framed by the Hon ble Apex Court, in the matters of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao -Vs- Reddy Sridevi Ors., as reported in 2021 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
