Govt. Of Tamilnadu, Commercial Tax & Registration Dept. Rep By Asst. Commissioner II, Rajapalayam vs S. Muthu Raja, RP Of Vajram Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant in IA No. 1209 / 2023 (`Delay in Re-filing of Appeal Paper(s)’), before the `Office of the Registry’ of this `Appellate Tribunal’.

The reason advanced on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant, is that the `Office of the Registry’ has returned the `Appeal’ for `rectification of the Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 395 / 2023 defects’, in so far as the Petitioner / Appellant is concerned, an Email or any other communication was not received by the Petitioner / Appellant, but only after making an enquiry, before the `Office of the Registry’, the defects were rectified and the instant `Appeal’, came to be filed on 03.11.2023. In this process, the `delay of 37 days’, in `Re-filing of Appeal Paper(s), is neither wilful nor intentional, but due to the aforesaid reasons.

Considering the fact that the delay in `Re-presentation’ / delay in `Re-filing of the Appeal Paper(s)’, before the `Office of the Registry’, is only a matter, between the `Petitioner / Appellant’ and the concerned `Court’ / `Tribunal’, this `Tribunal’, on being subjectively satisfied, as to the reasons ascribed on behalf of the `Petitioner / Appellant’, to the delay in `Re-filing of Appeal Paper(s)’, in IA No. 1209 / 2023, amounting to `37 days’, is hereby condones the `delay of 37 days’ and `allows’ the IA No. 1209/2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 395 / 2023, in the interest of justice, without costs.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant in IA No. 1210 / 2023 (Condone Delay Application) in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 395 / 2023.

According to the Petitioner / Appellant, the Petitioner / Appellant, had preferred the instant `Appeal’, with a `delay of 11 days’ (after the expiry of 30 days), in preferring the instant `Appeal’. The reasons advanced on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant is that the `Certified Copy’ of the `Impugned Order’, dated 09.06.2023 was `applied’ by the Petitioner/Appellant, immediately upon the knowledge about the `Impugned Order’ and the Certified Copy of the `Order’ is made available to the Petitioner / Appellant on 28.06.2023 and hence the Petitioner / Appellant, could not file the `Appeal’, in time.

Added further, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, serious efforts to collate all the documents, with regard to the statutory dues to be paid by the Corporate Debtor. In this process, there had occasioned a `delay of 11 days’ (after the expiry of 30 days), equivalent to 41 days, which is well within the outer limit of 30 + 15 = 45 days, as envisaged under Section 61(2) of the Code, 2016.

Be it noted that, as per Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, any person aggrieved, in respect of the `Order’, passed by the `Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’, is to prefer an `Appeal’, within 30 days from the date of `Pronouncement of Order’, and the rider being that 15 days time is enjoined that the `Appellate Tribunal’, to condone the `delay of 15 days’ (after the expiry of 30 days), provided `Sufficient Cause’ / `Good Cause’ is exhibited, on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant, in not preferring the `Appeal’, in time. Such details, shall not exceed 15 days from the `Pronouncement of Order’, namely after 30 days.

On being subjectively satisfied to the reasons, ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant at Paragraph 11 and more so at Paragraph 12 of the IA No. 1210 / 2023, this `Tribunal’, ofcourse, after expiry of 30 days, from the `date of Pronouncement of Order’, passed by the `Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’, by taking a lenient and liberal view and by extending its `Judicial Arm of Generosity’, hereby condones the `delay of 11 days’, in preferring the instant `Appeal’ and to promote the `Substantial Cause of Justice’, `allows’ the IA No. 1210 / 2023, without costs.

After arguing the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 395 / 2023, Mr. Dinesh, Representing Counsel appearing for Mr. B. Vijay, the Learned Addl. Govt. Pleader on Record for the Appellant, seeks permission from this `Tribunal’ to withdraw the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 395 / 2023, because of the fact that in IA No. 1127(CHE)/2022 in IA No.931/2020, the Petitioner / Respondent No.2, had only prayed for setting aside the Impugned Order dated 09.06.2023, passed by the NCLT, Chennai-1 and to direct the 1^st Respondent therein for issuance of directions that the 1^st Respondent to settle the Admitted Claim of Rs.9,77,877/- to and in favour of the Petitioner / Appellant.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner / Appellant, has not received the Compliance Certificate (Form H) by 1^st Respondent and if the Petitioner / Appellant, had any grievance with regard to the Admitted Claim of Rs.9,77,877/-, to and in favour of the Petitioner / Appellant and since the Petitioner / Appellant was not provided with anything at the time of `Admission of Assets’, this `Tribunal’ is of the considered view, that it is for the Petitioner / Appellant to `assail’, the `distribution of Assets’, as per Section 53 of the I & B Code, 2016, before the `Competent Forum’.

At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks permission from this `Tribunal’, to withdraw the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 395 / 2023. Acceding to his said request, the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 395 / 2023 is `dismissed as withdrawn’. No costs. However, the Petitioner / Appellant is given Liberty to assail the distribution of `Admitted Claim’, under Section 53 of the I & B Code, 2016, before a Competent Forum, ofcourse, in accordance with `Law’.