Afita Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. G.V. Narasimha Rao & Anr.

Heard Ms. Khushboo Rajgor for the Petitioner/Appellant in IA No. 13/2024 (Condone Delay Application) in main Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 3/2024. According to the Petitioner/Appellant, the Instant Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 3/2024 is preferred by the Petitioner/Appellant, in respect of the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 28.06.2023, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Hyderabad Bench-I in IA 1344/2022 in Company Petition (IB) No. 241(HDB)/2021. According to the Petitioner/Appellant, the ‘Impugned Order’, was passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Hyderabad Bench-I and was uploaded in the website on 07.07.2023.

According to the Appellant, there had occasioned a ‘delay of 117 days’, in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’. The main reason on record of the Petitioner/Appellant is that, since the Appellant is a Company and required to consider the implications of the ‘Order’ and generate consensus on the way forwards after obtaining legal advice and as Managing Director are mostly travelling for business purpose, making the process of co-ordination and consultation cumbersome and time-consuming. After considerable amount of discussion and review of opinions regarding the merits of the matter and other ancillary issues etc., decided to challenge the ‘Impugned Order’, before this ‘Tribunal’.

In this process, a ‘delay of 117 days’ occurred, according to the ‘Appellant’, in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’, filed before this ‘Tribunal’. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out by this ‘Tribunal’, that according to the Office of the Registry of this ‘Tribunal’, the ‘delay is 126 days’ and ‘not 117 days’, as pointed out by the Petitioner/Appellant in the instant ‘Appeal’.

Be it noted that admittedly the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 28.06.2023 in IA No. 1344/2022 in Company Petition (IB) No. 241(HDB)/2021, was passed on 28.06.2023 by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Hyderabad Bench-I. The Petitioner/Appellant should have preferred the ‘Appeal’, as per Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, within 30 days, from the date of pronouncement of the ‘Order’. But the fact of the matter is that, the instant ‘Appeal’, came to be filed on 01.12.2023, according to the Petitioner/Appellant with a ‘delay of 117 days’. But, as per the Office of the Registry there was a ‘delay of 126 days’ in filing the instant ‘Appeal’.

It is to be pointed out that as per the ingredients under Section 61(1) of the I & B Code, 2016, this `Appellate Tribunal’, is enjoined with the power to Condone the Delay, in preferring the ‘Appeal’, provided `sufficient/good cause’, being exhibited by the Petitioner/Appellant, in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’ and as such period, should not exceed more than 15 days.

In the instant case, the Petitioner/Appellant filed the ‘Appeal’, not with a ‘delay of 117 days’ but with a ‘delay of 126 days’ and this ‘Appellate Tribunal’, is not empowered to Condone the ‘delay of 126 days’, in the instant case, under Section 61(1) of the I & B Code, 2016. Even otherwise, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the considered view that the reason assigned by the Petitioner/Appellant in Para 2(b) of the Application IA No. 13/2024, in main Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins). No. 3 / 2024 is not acceptable to the subjective conscience by this ‘Tribunal’. The instant IA No. 13/2024, seeking to ‘Condone the delay of 126 days’, in preferring this instant ‘Appeal’ is ‘devoid of merits’, under Section 61(1) of I & B Code, 2016 is ‘dismissed’, without costs.

In view of the `Order’, passed by this Tribunal in IA No. 13/2024 (Condone Delay Application), the instant Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 3/2024 is not entertained by this `Tribunal’, and the same is ‘rejected’. No costs. The connected pending ‘Interlocutory Application’, is closed.