AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
This order shall dispose of an application bearing IA No. 1199 of 2023, filed in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 392 of 2023, under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing of the main appeal.
In brief, the main appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Mangalagiri by which an application filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under Section 60 (5) of the Code for setting aside the order of attachment passed by Respondent No. 2 & 3 on the assets of the Corporate Debtor by which IA(IBC)/21 of 2023 has been allowed and the order of attachment passed by Respondent No. 2 & 3 on the assets of CD has been set aside.
This appeal has been filed under Section 61 of the Code. Since the right of an appeal is a creature of statute, therefore, it has been given a prescribed time to present the appeal before the Appellate Authority. Section 61 (2) prescribes the period of 30 days for filing of such an appeal. However, the proviso to Section 61 (2) further extends the period of 15 days for the purpose of filing of the appeal provided the appellant assigned a sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the appellate authority for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed. Not only that the sufficient cause is the sine- qua- non for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay but also the period of 15 days cannot be extended in any manner as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘National Spot Exchange vs. Mr. Anil Kohli RP for Dunar Foods Limited’ in SCC Online SC 716, 2021 in which it has been held that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days which cannot even be extended under Article 142 of the constitution of India.
In such circumstances this tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider the application to condone the delay of 72 days i.e. beyond the period of 15 days prescribed under Section 61 (2) proviso, therefore, the application itself is not maintainable. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
Since the application of condonation of delay has been dismissed by an order of even date, therefore, the present appeal is not found to be duly constituted and hence, the same is hereby dismissed as well though without any order as to costs.