Invent Assets Securitization And Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. Santosh Bhatia

Heard Mr. Nishant Chothani, Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Petitioner / Appellant’ in IA/222/2024 (Condone Delay Application) in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.76 / 2024.

According to the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, in IA/222/2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.76 / 2024, the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 24.08.2023, in IA (IBC) Nos. 1096 and 1378 of 2023 in CP(IB)407/7/HDB/2019, was passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/`National Company Law Tribunal’, Hyderabad Bench-1, whereby and whereunder, M/s. MBS Impex Pvt. Ltd., the `Corporate Debtor’, admitted into ‘CIRP’, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, resting upon the `Application’, made by ‘ICICI Bank / Financial Creditor / Petitioner’.

The ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, has filed the instant IA/222/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.76 / 2024, with a `delay of 108 days’, in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’, in respect of the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 24.08.2023, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/`National Company Law Tribunal’, Hyderabad Bench-1, in IA (IBC) Nos. 1096 and 1378 of 2023 in CP(IB)407/7/HDB/2019, in and by which, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’, had erroneously, refused an extension of time, as per Regulation 21(A) and revert presumption therein.

It is not in dispute that the ‘Petitioner / Appellant’, has filed the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.76 / 2024, with a `delay of 108 days’, which is admittedly beyond 30 days, as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

It cannot be gainsaid that as per Section 61(2) of the Code, if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown, on behalf of the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, in not preferring the ‘Appeal’, within 30 days, from the `date of Pronouncement of Order’, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal’, then, after the expiry of 30 days, from the `date of pronouncement of 15 days’ time is given to this ‘Appellate Tribunal’, to condone the delay upto a period of 15 days, provided `Sufficient Cause’, is shown, on behalf of the ‘Petitioner / Appellant’, in filing the `Condone Delay Application’, in preferring an ‘Appeal’, in respect of the ‘Impugned Order’, passed by an `Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’.

Admittedly, the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 24.08.2023, in the instant case, was uploaded Online or on 26.08.2023, and the `Certified Copy’, was applied for the same on 01.12.2023 and duly received by the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, on 19.12.2023 viz. 19 days [Averment of the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’ in IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.76 / 2024 VI (C) vide Page 28 of the ‘Appeal Paper Book(s)’].

As far as the present case is concerned, the ‘Impugned Order’, was passed on 24.08.2023, by the `Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’, an ‘Appeal’, is to be preferred by `any Person Aggrieved’, in respect of ‘Impugned Order’, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’. when the ‘Impugned Order’, came to be passed on 24.08.2023, and the 30 days’ time to prefer an ‘Appeal’ got lapsed on 24.09.2023. The maximum time period that is permissible, as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to condone the delay is 15 days (of course, after expiry of 30 days from the date of Pronouncement of the Order, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal’). In the instant case, in regard to preferring of an ‘Appeal’ by the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’ then the IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.76 / 2024, there has occasioned a `delay of 108 days’, in preferring the `Appeal’.

Needless to point out that the computation for preferring of an ‘Appeal’, is to be reckoned from the `date of Pronouncement of an Order’, by the ‘Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal’, as per NCLAT Rules, 2016. It cannot be gainsaid that a ‘Certified Copy’, was applied in respect of the ‘Impugned Order’ on 01.12.2023 and duly received by the ‘Petitioner / Appellant’ on 19.12.2023 and therefore, the very computation, made after 19 days as offered by the ‘Petitioner / Appellant’ in IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.76 / 2024, is not to be accepted, by this ‘Tribunal’, because the time begins to run, from the `date of Pronouncement of the ‘Impugned Order’, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / `Tribunal’.

Admittedly, IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 76 / 2024 is filed, before this ‘Tribunal’, for `condonation of delay of 108 days’, and as per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, maximum outer limit for condoning the delay is 30 + 15 = 45 days, being outer limit and beyond 45 days, the delay cannot be condoned, by the ‘Appellate Tribunal’, because this ‘Appellate Tribunal’, is not enjoined with the power, to condone the delay for any period beyond 45 days, as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Looking at from any angle, the way in which the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, had calculated to say that, it had received the `Certified Copy’, on 19.12.2023 (i.e. on the 19<sup>th</sup> day), when it had made the `Application’ for `Certified Copy’, on 01.12.2023, is unworthy of acceptance, and in reality, there has occasioned a `delay of 108 days’, in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’, and the same cannot be condoned by this ‘Tribunal’, in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Looking at from any angle, the `delay of 108 days’, in preferring the instant IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 76 / 2024, is not to be condoned and the IA No. 222 / 2024, is devoid of merits. Accordingly, IA No. 222 / 2024, filed by the Petitioner / Appellant, fails.

In fine, the IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.76 / 2024 is ‘Dismissed’. No costs.

In view of the fact that this ‘Tribunal’, has passed ‘Orders’ in IA No. 222 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 76 / 2024, by dismissing the said ‘Condone Delay Application’, as a logical corollary, the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 76 / 2024, is not entertained, by this ‘Tribunal’ and the same is hereby `rejected’. No costs. The connected pending `Interlocutory Applications’, if any, are `closed’.