9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Explanation provided doesn't inspire much confidence.
There are no sufficient justification to condone the refiling delay of 104 days in time bound IBC proceedings.
Conclusion - Such delay of 104 days in refiling is not reasonable and justifiably explained. The application is therefore dismissed.
Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the father of the Counsel for the Appellant suffered from brain stroke on 29.09.2024. The Appellant has failed to give any cogent reasons for explaining undue delay caused in refiling of this appeal. It is contended that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Appellant. The Respondent seeks to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and also rejecting the memorandum of appeal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. Both sides have extensively cited various judgments which are being noted in subsequent paragraphs. 5. The Appellant has relied upon various judgments to bring home the point that this Appellate Tribunal is empowered to condone delay in refiling the appeal. It has relied upon the following judgments: Indian Statistical Institute Vs. Associated Builders & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 483, Nishant Bhutada Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors. in Competition Appeal (AT) No. 9 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4958, 5288 of 2024 decided on 13.12.2024, and V.R. Ashok Rao and Ors. vs. TDT Copper Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 3516 (5 Member's Bench) There is no quarrel to the argument that this Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in refiling the appeal, but as per statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. MST Katiji & Ors. in (1987) 2 SCC 107, that every day's delay must be explained in a rational and pragmatic manner. In the present case, this judgment is of no help to the Appellant as it has not been able to explain each days delay in a rational and pragmatic manner. 9. The Appellant has also relied upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.T. Purushothama Rai Vs. K.G. Uthaya & Ors. in (2011) 14 SCC 86 and Rani Kusum (Smt.) Vs. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) & Ors. in (2005) 6 SCC 705, wherein it has relied on the principle that procedural laws should not defeat substantive justice. It is to be noted that IBC is a self-contained code and has a time bound mechanism for all proceedings to be completed. It prescribes certain time limit within which the appeal has to be filed and if it is not filed within that time period, the Appellate Authority does not have any statutory power to condone the delay beyond that time period. This has been well settled in various judgments as has been noted by us in subsequent paragraphs. 10. The Respondent relies upon judgement of this Appellate Tribunal dated 06.12.2024 in Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v. Vaibhav Khandelwal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... callous, careless and negligent in refiling the appeal on time and such inaction or dereliction cannot be countenanced. We are of the view that the Applicant cannot be shown indulgence keeping in view that the IBC proceedings have stringent timelines to be followed and the adjudicatory proceedings have to be completed in a prompt, expeditious and time bound manner." 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 4 have also relied upon the judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. H L Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in IA No.3202 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1700 of 2024, has held that: " .... 11. Under IBC, CIRP is envisaged to be a time-bound process which has to be completed in 330 days. Allowing refiling delay of 205 days without convincing reasons would tantamount to encouraging parties to play havoc with timelines and put unwarranted speed-breakers in the resolution process which does not commend us. In the given circumstances, we are reluctant to allow the Applicant the luxury of 205 days delay in refiling in IBC proceedings. " 13. Furthermore, in accordance with National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects were notified by the NCLAT registry on 04.07.2024, the Appeal was finally refiled on 23.10.2024 after rectification of defects, with a delay of 104 days. From the explanation we find no reasons except for medical condition with the father of one of the Advocates which occurred sometime on end September. There is total silence from July to end September, 2024. Explanation provided doesn't inspire much confidence. We don't find the reasons explained at paras 3, 4, 5 reproduced earlier to be sufficient to condone the delay in refiling. We find that the Appellant has been negligent in prosecuting the refiling, which in turn indicates lack of diligence of the Appellant or its bona fides. The catena of judgements as noted in previous paragraphs support the case of the Respondent and go against the Appellant. In the facts and circumstances, we therefore don't find sufficient justification to condone the refiling delay of 104 days in time bound IBC proceedings.
Orders
17. Such delay of 104 days in refiling is not reasonable and justifiably explained. The application is therefore dismissed. Consequently , Company Appeal ( AT ) ( Insolvency ) No. 2131 of 2024 is also dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
