Novho Careers Private Limited vs Karvy Next Limited

Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ in IA No.1205 of 2023 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.393 of 2023. According to the ‘Petitioner/ Appellant/Operational Creditor’, the ‘Impugned Order’ in CP(IB)/92/09/HDB/2022 was passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench on 18.07.2023 and in the instant case, the ‘Limitation Period’, for preferring an ‘Appeal’ from the date of ‘Pronouncement of the Order’, expired on 17.08.2023 and admittedly, the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, had e-filed their ‘Appeal Papers’, before the ‘Office of the Registry’ of this, ‘Tribunal’, on 02.09.2023 and in this process there has occasioned a delay of 16 days (after expiry of 30 days period, as envisaged under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016).

The ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ in his IA No.1205 of 2023 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.393/2023 at paragraph ‘e’ (vide page No.351 of the ‘Appeal Paper Book’ of the ‘Appellant’), had pointed out that he had not received ‘Free Certified Copy’ of the ‘Impugned Order’, dated 18.07.2023, from the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’, as per National Company Law Tribunal Rules and received the ‘web copy’ of the ‘Impugned Order’, only on 19.07.2023, from the National Company Law Tribunal website, based on which, the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ to obtain ‘Legal Opinion’ for identifying on what grounds, the main ‘Company Petition’, came to be ‘Dismissed’ by the ‘Appellate Authority’/‘Tribunal’ to approach this ‘Appellate Tribunal’.

Subsequently, the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ had approached the Learned Advocate, in Chennai, to prefer an ‘Appeal’ and that there has occasioned a ‘delay of 16 days’, which is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the aforesaid reasons.

Per contra, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the ‘Respondent/Corporate Debtor’ is that, the instant ‘Appeal’, is preferred by the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ beyond the statutory period (30 + 15 = 45 days), after the outer limit period. As such, the instant ‘Appeal’ is per se, ‘not maintainable’, and added further, the ‘delay of 16 days’, in preferring the ‘Appeal’, cannot be condoned by this ‘Tribunal’, as per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

At this stage, the Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Respondent’ refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V Nagarajan v SKS Ispat & Power Limited & Ors. in page 244 reported in 2022 (2) that the ‘Period of Limitation’, has to be counted from the ‘date of Order’ and not from the ‘date of knowledge’, and also submitted that the period of 30 days is counted from the date of ‘Impugned Order’.

The Learned Counsel for the ‘Respondent/Corporate Debtor’, adverts to the Decision/Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6187 of 2019 dated 14.09.2019 between the National Spot Exchange Ltd. v Mr. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Limited, wherein at paragraph 11.2, it is observed as under:

Admittedly, the ‘Impugned Order’, came to be passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ on 18.07.2023 and the 30 days period, expired on 18.08.2023 and if the ‘Limitation’ is extended by another 15 days, as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the said period got lapsed on 01.09.2023. Further in the instant case, an ‘Appeal’, came to be filed on 02.09.2023 viz. after expiry of 45 days.

The substance of the contention, advanced on behalf of the ‘Respondent/Corporate Debtor’ is that, there is no further Provision in the case for looking into the aspect of ‘Condonation of Delay’ beyond the ‘period of 15 days’ and also that the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ in the instant ‘Appeal’ in IA/1205/2023 at paragraph (‘e’) had categorically averred that the ‘Appellant’, had to obtain a ‘legal opinion’ for identifying on all the grounds, the application came to be ‘Dismissed’, to approach this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ and had to approach the Learned Counsel in Chennai, in preferring the ‘Appeal’, against the ‘Impugned Order’, and the same has resulted in a delay of 15 days viz. in filing the present ‘Appeal’ and cannot be countenanced in the ‘eye of Law’.

It is to be pointed out by this ‘Tribunal’ that the filing of ‘certified copy’ of the ‘Impugned Order’ by the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’, is required to be done as per Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. In the instant case, the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’, has filed the ‘Exemption Application’, seeking to exempt the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’, from not filing the ‘Certified Copy’ of the ‘Impugned Order’, as per Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

The other contention, advanced on behalf of the ‘Respondent/Corporate Debtor’ is that even assuming that the instant ‘Appeal’ was filed within the statutory period of 30 + 15 = 45 days being the outer limit, the IA/1205/2023 in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.393/2023, seeking ‘condonation of delay of 15 days’, is without showing any ‘sufficient or valid cause’, and the reason, ascribed on behalf of the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’ (vide Paragraph ‘e’ of the IA/1205/2023 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.393/2023) to the effect that he had obtained ‘Legal Opinion’ of the Learned Counsel, etc. as mentioned in the ‘Application’ is not acceptable one.

This ‘Tribunal’, finds force in the submission made by the ‘Respondent/Corporate Debtor’ in this regard, and the said submission is worthy of acceptance by this ‘Tribunal’.

Considering the fact that the ‘Petitioner/Appellant//Operational Creditor’ has knowledge about the ‘Impugned Order’ of the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ on 18.07.2023 and admittedly, the ‘Petitioner/Appellant /Operational Creditor’ has not filed the instant ‘Appeal’ within a period of 30 days and in any event filed the ‘Appeal’ beyond 45 days as mentioned under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such, the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Operational Creditor’ has not made out any ‘sufficient cause’, for the purpose of ‘condonation of delay of 16 days’ (after the expiry of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of order). Looking at from any angle, the IA/1205/2023 sans merits.

In fine, the IA/1205/2023 (‘Condonation of Delay Application’) in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.393 of 2023 is ‘Dismissed’. No costs.

In view of the fact, this ‘Tribunal’, has ‘Dismissed’ IA/1205/2023 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.393 of 2023 (Condone Delay Application) today, as the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.393 of 2023 is not entertained, by this ‘Tribunal’ and the same is hereby ‘Rejected’. No costs.

The connected pending IA is closed.