AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
07.02.2025: Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, by which the Restoration Application and Application for condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application has been rejected. The Restoration Application was filed after delay of 362 days. The Adjudicating Authority has held that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of inordinate delay in entertaining Restoration Application.
Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Operational Creditor itself has gone into liquidation and the Appellant is a Liquidator appointed by Singapore Court. It is submitted that there was no fund available to the Appellant to prosecute the proceedings and now the Directors of the Company has decided to fund, hence Application was filed.
We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
Admittedly, the proceeding was initiated by the Operational Creditor who subsequently had gone into liquidation. The only reason for not applying for restoration is unavailability of funds by the Appellant. The fact that now Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 69 of 2025 2 of 2 erstwhile Directors of the Company are ready to fund cannot be ground to condone the delay of 362 days. IBC proceedings have their own timelines and inordinate delay of almost one year has not been condoned by the Adjudicating Authority holding that there is no sufficient ground given for condonation of delay. In Paragraph 15 of the Order, Adjudicating Authority made following observations:
“15. Moreover, the delay condonation sought by the Applicant is for a period of 362 days whereas, the actual delay in affirming the present Application is more than 362 days. Further the Applicant has made bald averments in Para-6 qua the scarcity of the funds which is not acceptable as no substantial evidence has been placed with the IA for seeking condonation of delay.”
We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority has taken correct view of the matter and being not satisfied that there is a sufficient ground for condonation has rightly rejected the Application. There is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal dismissed.