Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 07 NCLAT CK 3862

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Bommasandra II (Koramangala) vs Vijay P Lulla Liquidator of M/s. Bhuvan Infra Projects Private Limited & Anr.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI Bench · Decided on 17 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) · Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.144/2023 (IA Nos.480 & 481/2023)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 534 words

ORDER

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:

This application is filed for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal against the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in I.A. No. 130 of 2023 filed in CP (IB) No. 122/BB/2017 by which an application filed by the Liquidator has been allowed with certain directions.

2.

The impugned order was passed on 05.01.2023 and the appeal is a statutory right provided in Section 61 of the Code which deals with appeals and appellate authority and is reproduced as under: -

“Section 61. Appeals and Appellate Authority.

(1)

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

(2)

Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.”

3.

Section 61(1) provides that any person who is aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority has a right to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority. Whereas Section 61(2) provides that there shall be a period of 30 days for filing such an appeal before the Appellate Authority and proviso to Section 61(2) says that the Appellate Authority may allow the appeal to be filed even after expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time but such period shall not exceed 15 days.

4.

The Impugned order admittedly passed on 05.01.2023. The statutory period of 30 days for filing the appeal in the ordinary course expired on 05.02.2023. The Applicant stated to have applied certified copy on 13.01.2023 which was obtained on 07.02.2023 but still the appeal was filed on 21.03.2023.

5.

Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the impugned order was uploaded on 13.01.2023, certified copy was applied and after obtaining the same on 07.02.2023, the limitation period has been counted but still a period of 14 days had expired out of the period of 15 days which is prescribed under Section 61(2) proviso.

6.

We have heard Counsel for the Applicant and after perusal of the application, are of the considered opinion that the Appellant has been very casual in preferring the appeal. The period of 30 days expired on 05.02.2023 and further period of 15 days would have expired on 20.02.2023 but the appeal has been filed on 21.03.2023. The appeal is thus found to be hopelessly barred by limitation. Thus, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present application and hence the same is hereby dismissed.

Since, we have dismissed the application for condonation of delay, therefore, this appeal cannot be treated as duly constituted, therefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed as such.