AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
23.02.2024: I.A. No.325 of 2024: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent. This is an application praying for condonation of three days’ dealy in filing the Appeal. In the application from Para 2 to 4, the Appellant has stated following as reasons for delay:
“2.That the present application has been filed craving for the kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay of three days in filing the present appeal against the impugned order dated December 23, 2022 as the Applicant/Appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the same within the stipulated period.
3.That, pursuant to the pronouncement of the aforesaid order on December 23, 2022, the Cont’d…/ Applicant/Appellant was not able to file for the certified copy on account of the winter vacations which started from December 24, 2022 and ended on January 1. 2023.
4.That, subsequently, on January 2, 2023 the Applicant/Appellant has applied for the free certified copy of the order dated December 23, 2022 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in CP (IB) No. 36 of 2022. The certified copy of the Impugned Order was delivered on January 3, 2023, and thereafter the Appellant/Applicant proceeded with the filing of the present Appeal.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the certified copy of the order was applied on 02.01.2023 and he received copy on 03.01.2023, thereafter appeal can be presented on 25.01.2023, which has caused three days’ delay.
Learned counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant submits that limitation shall run only from the date of pronouncement as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors., (2022) 2 SCC 244”. He submitted that the Appellant has not given any sufficient reason for condoning 3 days’ delay. He submits that delay can be condoned only when there are reasons given in the application.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is clear that limitation for filing appeal is 30 days from passing of the order. In the present case, after the Appellant obtained the certified copy on 03.01.2023, he filed appeal on 25.01.2023, due to which 3 days’ delay was occurred. It has been stated in the application that delay is bonafide. We are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown, delay of three days is liable to be condoned. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 325 of 2024 is disposed of.
I.A. No. 5540 of 2023: This is an application praying for condonation of 280 days’ delay in refiling the appeal. The ground taken in the application is that there are large volume of set of files and curing of defects as marked by the registry, the e-file could not be uploaded. The reasons have been given in Para 2 of the application, which are as follows:
“a. That the impugned order was passed on 23.12.2022. Thereafter, appellant took legal advice for filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal wherein the ld. Counsel at Mumbai informed him that they are having good case on merit and there is likelihood to succeed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
b. That accordingly, the present appeal was filed within limitation but after marking of defects, the defects were cured by the appellant but since in between there was some technical issues i.e. translation of various vernacular documents are marked by the registry of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
c. That due to large volume of set of files and curing of defects are marked by the registry and hence the e-file could not be uploaded and accordingly, some delay has been occasioned in re-filing the appeal which is neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to above said bonafide reasons.
d. It is in these circumstances; it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in re-filing the present appeal.”
We are of the view that no satisfactory reason has been given in the aforesaid averment to condone 280 days’ delay. IBC is the proceeding, which has to be completed in a time bound manner. There being delay of 280 days in refiling and there being no satisfactory explanation, we reject the application.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the delay was caused because translation of voluminous documents was to be done from Marathi to English.
We have already looked into the reasons given in the Application. We do not find any sufficient ground to condone refiling delay of 280 days. Application for Condonation of Refiling Delay is dismissed. In result, Memo of Appeal is rejected.