AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
05.12.2024 I.A. No. 8409 of 2024 This is an application praying for condonation of 229 days delay in filing the Appeal.
This application discloses startling facts which need to be specially noticed by this Court to find out the manner in which the statutorily rights of filing the Appeal under Section 61 is being used in the present case. These very appellant have filed a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 of 2024 against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi-IV in I.A. No. 3063 of 2022 which appeal was heard and disposed of by this Tribunal by its Judgment dated 07.08.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 of 2024 and 733 of 2024 against the judgment of this Tribunal on 07.08.2024, these Appeals were filed also in the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.10191 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No. 10213 of 2021 which appeals were dismissed on 13.09.2024.
The present Appellants has again filed these Appeals against the same judgment dated 28.02.2024 against which the appeals were filed in this Tribunal being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 of 2024 and 733 of 2024 with the present application praying for condonation of 229 days delay in filing the delay. The jurisdiction to condone the delay vested in this Tribunal is only 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso. The present Appellants have already challenged the same order 28.02.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi-IV, in the same proceeding by which application against the Personal Guarantors were admitted initiating Insolvency Resolution Process.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to contends that there are certain other grounds which could be raised in the appeal on the basis of the judgment of the NCLT in CP(IB) No.581/MB/2023 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Dilip Raghunath Pol dated 27.08.2024.
The question in the present appeal in I.A. which has been filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 8409 of 2024 and 8413 of 2024 is for condonation of 229 days delay in filing the appeal. The appellants had already filed Appeals against the same order before this Tribunal which were disposed of by this Tribunal by judgment dated 07.08.2024 which have been filed as Annexure at page 170 of the Appeal Paper Book, an against which order two appeals were filed in the Supreme Court which were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.09.2024 which is as follows:
“Order
We do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the present appeals are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Appellant having already availed the remedy of appeal and in this Tribunal and up to the Supreme Court against the same order we fail to see that how the Appellant can filed the present appeal again challenging the same order which attained finality before this Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Counsel who advice their clients have also duty to advice that litigants may not abuse the process of law. When earlier appeals were filed and decided which has attained finality. We are of the view that no reasonable persons could have advice the litigant to file appeal against the same order against which an appeal was earlier filed by same appellants which had attained finality.
We find the present case a case of clear abuse of process and glaring facts which are reflected in the present appeal deserves application to be dismissed with cost.
Learned Counsel who was appearing for the applicant still continued to argue the matter, even after we have dictated the order indicating our view. That the present case is nothing but abuse the process of court. We thus, impose cost on the Appellants as well as Counsel appearing for the Appellant to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within one month Rs.50,000/- each.
There is no cause for the condoning the delay. Delay condonation application is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected with cost as indicated above.