AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
In this Company Appeal, the matter was heard at admission stage by a Bench constituting of three Members headed by the then Judicial Member. On 2nd of May 2024 the order was passed to the following effect:
“IA/388/2024 Heard the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioners/Appellants’ in IA/388/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.144/2024(Condone Delay Application).
1.According to the ‘Petitioners/Appellants’ there has occasioned a delay of 94 days from the date of pronouncement of the order in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’ vide Impugned Order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ NCLT, Bengaluru Bench in IA No.580 of 2022 in C.P. (IB) No.52/BB/2017.
2.The reasons ascribed on behalf of the ‘Petitioners/Appellants’ for the delay of 94 days in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’ before this ‘Tribunal’ is that the ‘Appellants’ Advocate through e-mail dated 15.03.2024 had stated that they had appeared before the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ on 17.04.2024 and 13.06.2024, the ‘technical difficulties’ in the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ e-filing website precluded them from timely filing of the ‘Vakalat Nama’ thereby causing inconvenience for the ‘Appellant’ in the on-going ‘proceedings’ and causing the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ to continue the same in the absence of the ‘Appellants’.
3.Furthermore, the ‘Appellants’ pointed out that their non-appearance before the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ was neither intentional nor deliberate and was only due to lack of updates received from the Appellants’ erstwhile counsel and the inadvertent default on the part of the ‘Appellant’s earlier Counsel and further due to the non-supply of certified free copy from the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ to the ‘Appellants’ address. Because of the fact that the ‘default’ committed on the part of the ‘Appellant’ local Counsel, the 'Appellant’ being a bona fide litigants, the litigant should not be the one to suffer its consequences, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioners/Appellants’.
4.It is the stand of the ‘Petitioner/Appellants’ that they directed their new Counsel to draft a suitable ‘Appeal’ to be filed before this ‘Tribunal’ and that considerable time was consumed in collating and sharing of the documents and inputs from three different branches viz. from Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Bengaluru to the ‘Appellant’s Counsel’s Office based out of New Delhi.
5.Besides the above, the Learned Counsels had to undergo multiple physiotherapy sessions throughout the months of January, February and March which further caused a slight delay in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’.
6.The ‘Petitioners/Appellants’ have also enclosed a ‘Medical MRI report’ of the ‘Applicants’ Counsel to show their bona fides to corroborate the plea taken on behalf of the ‘Appellants’.
7.As such, the stand of Appellant is that the delay of 94 days which has occurred in the instant case in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’ is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reasons.
8.At this juncture, a mere perusal of the copy of the order dated 07.12.2023 in IA 580 of 2022 in CP(IB) No.52/BB/2017, obtained by the ‘Appellants’, shows that it is certified to be a true copy of the original issued by the ‘Registry of the NCLT, Bengaluru Bench’, and that the endorsement was made by the official of the NCLT, Bengaluru Bench by affixing his signature on 19.12.2023 and that it is the ‘free of cost’ copy that is filed before this ‘Tribunal’ on behalf of the ‘Appellants’.
9.It is pointed out by this ‘Tribunal’ that as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, if any person is aggrieved in respect of the ‘Impugned Order’ passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’, then the ‘Appeal’ is to be preferred within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order. Further, this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ is given a leverage of 15 days more (after expiry of 30 days) to accept a Petition. In any event, the outer limit being 45 days, there is no power to enjoin upon this ‘Tribunal’ to condone a delay of more than 45 days from the date of the order in filing/preferring an ‘Appeal’ by an aggrieved person.
10.Viewed in that perspective, this ‘Tribunal’ taking note of the fact that the delay of 94 days which has occasioned in the instant ‘Appeal’ (Admittedly the same being after the expiry of 30 days), cannot be condoned under Section 61(2) of the Code. The instant IA/388/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.144/2024(Condone Delay Application) is devoid of merits and accordingly the delay of condonation sought for by the ‘Petitioners/Appellants’ is not accepted by this ‘Tribunal’.
11.In fine, the IA/388/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.144/2024(Condone Delay Application) is ‘Dismissed’. No costs.
Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.144/2024
In view of the fact that this ‘Tribunal’ has passed orders and dismissed the Condone Delay Application in IA/388/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.144/2024 after having ascribed the necessary reasons thereto, as a corollary, the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) 144/2024 is not entertained by this ‘Tribunal’ and the same is hereby ‘rejected’. No costs.
Connected pending IAs if any are closed.”
But owing to the fact that the Senior Member of the Bench demitted his office before the order could be transcribed, the order could not be signed and hence could not be uploaded. In order to meet out the aforesaid contingencies the matter has been directed to be listed today.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The order as passed on 02nd May 2024 is being reiterated to be passed today and accordingly, it is directed to take the consequential actions as directed by the order.