Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2024) 04 NCLAT CK 0063

Omm Constructions vs Rinku Chaudhary & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 19 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Barun Mitra, Member (T) · Arun Baroka, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 641 Of 2024 & I.A. No. 1640, 2290 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 222 words

I.A. No. 1640 of 2024

1.

This is an application praying for condonation of refiling delay of 85 days. It is submitted that when the defects were communicated, the same were cured within the time allowed and the Appeal thereafter re-filed several times the defect was communicated and for refiling proof had to be attached, which caused delay.

Cause shown sufficient. Refiling delay is condoned.

I.A. No. 2290 of 2024

1.

This is an application praying for condonation of 47 days delay in filing the Appeal. Order impugned was passed on 29.08.2023 and this Appeal has been e-filed on 16.11.2023.

2.

Appellant has prayed for condonation of 47 days delay in the application.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that by the order impugned, Adjudicating Authority has also directed for handwriting expert opinion and which report was being awaited by the Appellant hence the delay was caused.

4.

It  is  submitted  that  the  delay  in  such  circumstances  need  to  be condoned.

5.

Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is 15 days as per Section 61 sub-Section (2) proviso. The prayer made in the application is for condonation of 47 days delay which is beyond our jurisdiction.

6.

We, thus are of the view that the delay condonation prayer cannot be allowed.

Delay condonation is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected.