AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial):
IA No. 1119 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022:
According to the `Petitioner / Appellant’, the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022 is preferred by it, being `Aggrieved’, against the `Order’ dated 29.06.2022 in IA(IBC)/512(CHE)/2022 in TCP/95/IB/2017, passed by the `Adjudicating Authority’ (`National Company Law Tribunal’, Special Bench - I, Chennai), with a `delay of 15 days’.
It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant that the `Petitioner / Appellant’, resides in Delhi and was unable to travel to Chennai, for the purpose of reviewing the `Refiling Process’ and provide his insights, with respect to the refiling of IA No. 1119 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022, within the stipulated time. In this connection, the stand of the `Petitioner / Appellant’ is that, the `delay of 11 days’, in `refiling’, the instant `Comp.App. (AT)(CH)(INS.) No.443 of 2022’, is not an `intentional’ one. Per contra, the same is a `Bona fide’ one, on account of the reason that he was unable to travel from Delhi to Chennai, for the purpose of refiling process, etc.
Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that, the reasons ascribed on behalf of the `Petitioner / Appellant’, in regard to the `purported delay of 11 days’, in `refiling’ the instant `Appeal’, are not a `Bona fide’ and `Genuine’ one, and in the interest of justice, the same cannot be `condoned’, and the IA No. 1119 of 2022, filed by the `Petitioner / Appellant’, is liable to be dismissed.
It is an `axiomatic principle in Law’, that the `aspect of delay of 11 days’, in `refiling’ the instant `Appeal’, as projected by the `Petitioner / Appellant’, is purely a matter between the `Petitioner / Appellant’, and the `Respondent’, has no say in the matter.
In the light of the above, this `Tribunal’, on being subjectively satisfied, as to the reasons assigned on behalf of the `Petitioner / Appellant’ that, since he resides in Delhi, he was not in a position to travel to Chennai for the purpose of `Reviewing the Refiling Process’, etc., `condones’, the `delay of 11 days’ in `refiling’ the instant `Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022’, to prevent an `Aberration of Justice’, and to promote `Substantial Cause of Justice’.
Accordingly, IA No. 1119 of 2022 in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022, is `allowed’. No costs.