9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied that there are reasonable and cogent grounds for not refiling the appeal on time. While agreeing that an application for condonation of refiling delay is a matter which is between the Applicant and the Bench in which the Respondent is not supposed to have any determinative say, nonetheless, it cannot be unmindful of the fact that the Bench is equally duty-bound to scrutinise the reasons for delay in refiling the petition and cannot allow any unexplained delay to pass muster. Though the rigours of condonation of delay in refiling are not as strict as condonation of delay in filing, it cannot be oblivious of the fact that IBC is a time bound process and no wanton delay can be permitted in IBC proceedings. The prime explanation attributed by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant was difficulty faced by her in obtaining instructions from the client with regard to refiling the appeal and to take requisite steps for listing of the appeal. In the same breath, we also notice that submission was made by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant was waiting and watching the proceedings before the CoC in respect of the resolution plan. This submission clearly shows that instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing pleading in paragraph 5 of their reply as under: 5. The appellant has not given any cogent explanation as to why there was an inordinate delay of 104 days in refiling the present appeal. The purported personal difficulty of the Learned Counsel for the appellant in refiling the appeal within 7 days from collection of the Defect Sheet i.e., June 14, 2024 does not justify as to why it took the appellant 104 days in filing the present appeal. No particulars as to when the Defect Sheet was ultimately collected on behalf of the appellant and as to why 104 days lapsed in refiling the present appeal has been averred by the appellant. In the absence of any such explanation or sufficient cause being demonstrated by the appellant, the appellant cannot be entitled to seek condonation of the inordinate delay of 104 days in filing the present appeal. 4. The contentions of the Respondent was contested on behalf of the Applicant that the refiling delay was occasioned by bonafide and genuine reasons and the Applicant should be allowed an opportunity to place on record those reasons. Ms Purti Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant accordingly sought liberty to file a better affidavit to explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the Appellant and an order was passed on 24.09.2024, whereby the Appellant was directed to pay the interim finance according to its voting share. 11. I state that grave prejudice was caused to the Appellant with the passing of the order dated 24.09.2024. Accordingly, the Appellant was advised to challenge the order dated 24.09.2024 and also to pursue the appeal filed against the order dated 30.04.2024. 12. I state that the Counsel was thus in a personal difficulty since she did not have the necessary instructions to refile the appeal and take requisite steps for the listing of the captioned appeal. ( Emphasis supplied ) 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the records carefully. 7. For better appreciation of the reply of the Refiling Condonation Delay of the Application, it may be useful to capture the sequence of events of the matter at hand without going into the merits of the matter. 8. ODAT GmbH, the present Applicant, is a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor-M/s Darjeeling Organic Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. which had been admitted into the rigors of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Basis the directions of this Tribunal dated 13.02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order dated 30.04.2024. Submission was pressed that the above cited reasons show that the delay was triggered by bonafide reasons, and in any case the Respondent was not entitled to raise any objection to the Refiling Condonation of Delay Application since condonation of refiling delay is a matter between the Appellant and the Appellate Tribunal in which the Respondent cannot interfere. In support of their contention, attention was adverted to the judgment of this Tribunal in Shree Sai Jagannath Vs Adhunik Metaliks Ltd Ors in IA No. 1670 of 2024 wherein it was held that it is a well settled proposition of law that condoning of delay application is a matter between the Petitioner and the Appellate Tribunal in which the Respondents do not have any say. 11. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has raised serious objections to the grounds of delay pleaded by the Applicant. It has been contended that even after receiving the defect sheet from the Registry on 14.06.2024, the Applicant had wilfully and deliberately let the application lie in defects for an inordinately long time as a matter of strategy and not for any genuine ground which prevented them from curing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the Appellant company, we are not convinced of this ground to be a good enough for condonation of delay. 12. Coming to our analysis, we have no doubts in our mind that delay in refiling can be condoned only when the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable and cogent grounds for not refiling the appeal on time. While we agree that an application for condonation of refiling delay is a matter which is between the Applicant and the Bench in which the Respondent is not supposed to have any determinative say, nonetheless, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that the Bench is equally duty-bound to scrutinise the reasons for delay in refiling the petition and cannot allow any unexplained delay to pass muster. Though the rigours of condonation of delay in refiling are not as strict as condonation of delay in filing, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that IBC is a time bound process and no wanton delay can be permitted in IBC proceedings. 13. Though a more liberal approach is usually taken while considering the condonation of delay in refiling, yet there has to be an element of reasonableness in the delay so that the balance of justice in respect of both parties does not suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
