9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious judgments - Reliance placed in COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS SATISH KUMAR GUPTA OTHERS [ 2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that ' on the facts of a given case, if it can be shown to the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal under the Code that only a short period is left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330 days, and that it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the corporate debtor be put back on its feet instead of being sent into liquidation and that the time taken in legal proceedings is largely due to factors owing to which the fault cannot be ascribed to the litigants before the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal, the delay or a large part thereof being attributable to the tardy process of the Adjudicating Authority and/or the Appellate Tribunal itself, it may be open in such cases for the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to extend time beyond 330 days.' The issue of timelines has been further elaborated by Hon ble Apex Court in EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 18.11.2024, the counsel for the Appellant is filing the present Additional Affidavit setting out the relevant dates and facts in relation to the delay in re-filing of the Appeal which are as follows: Date Particulars 01.06.2023 Captioned Appeal was filed. 12.06.2023 Defects were notified and the limitation period of 7 days for refiling this Appeal expired on 19.06.2023. A true copy of the Defect Sheets notified by the Ld. Registry on 12.06.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-1. Upto 1st week of July, 2023 At the time of raising of the defects, counsel for the Appellant was travelling and was out of station. The Deponent only returned to New Delhi on 28.06.2023 in the evening. Due to the aforesaid, the counsel for the Appellant was unable to take any steps to remove the defects at the time. A true copy of the Boarding Pass of the counsel for the Appellant is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE - 2. It is pertinent to add here that due to the summer vacations, even the clerk of the counsel for the Appellant was unavailable and thus could not remove defects and he returned only in the first week of July 2023, when the office of the counsel for the Appellant resumed functioning. 21.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly, counsel for the Appellate was required to remove all references stating that I.A. No. 3447/2021 was being challenged and confine the Appeal to a challenge to 3583/2022. It took some time to cure the said defect. 23.10.2023 to 27.10.2023 Due to Dusshera Vacation, the office of the counsel for the Appellant was not functioning. This caused some further delay in refiling. 13.11.2023 to 15.11.2023 Due to Diwali Vacation, the office of the counsel for the Appellant was not functioning. This caused some further delay in refiling. 22.11.2023 The Appeal was refiled after curing all defects. [Emphasis supplied] 4. Before proceeding further, we note that as per the records of the Registry, the facts in refiling delay are as follows: 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant e-filed the Memo of Appeal on 01.06.2023. The Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 12.06.2023, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 22.11.2023. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that when the defects were received the Counsel was travelling and then there were several major defects removing of same took some time. Delay h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in various judgments. 9. In the Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, it has been noted that: . 127. Given the fact that the time taken in legal proceedings cannot possibly harm a litigant if the Tribunal itself cannot take up the litigant's case within the requisite period for no fault of the litigant, a provision which mandatorily requires the CIRP to end by a certain date without any exception thereto - may well be an excessive interference with a litigant's fundamental right to non- arbitrary treatment under Article 14 and an excessive, arbitrary and therefore unreasonable restriction on a litigant's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This being the case, we would ordinarily have struck down the provision in its entirety. However, that would then throw the baby out with the bath water, inasmuch as the time taken in legal proceedings is certainly an important factor which causes delay, and which has made previous statutory experiments fail as we have seen from Madras Petrochem [Madras Petrochem Ltd. v. BIFR, (2016) 4 SCC 1: (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 478]. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fora. In the absence of a court exercising exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to insolvency, the corporate debtor would have to file and/or defend multiple proceedings in different fora. These proceedings may cause undue delay in the insolvency resolution process due to multiple proceedings in trial courts and courts of appeal. A delay in completion of the insolvency proceedings would diminish the value of the debtor's assets and hamper the prospects of a successful reorganisation or liquidation. For the success of an insolvency regime, it is necessary that insolvency proceedings are dealt with in a timely, effective and efficient manner. ( Emphasis Supplied ) 11. This Tribunal has also dealt on the same issue in M/s Technology Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd. represented by M.S. Muralidharan Vs. Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1705 as follows: . 6. Section 61(1) provides a Statutory Right of an Appeal to any person who is aggrieved by the Order of the Tribunal. Section 61(2) prescribes a period of 30 days for filing such an Appeal as provided under Section 61(1). Section 61(2) proviso further provides a period of 15 days both to the Appellant/Applicant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
