AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The Appellant, had been an Applicant to IA / 2331 / CHE / 2023, as it was preferred in CP / IB / 137 / CHE / 2021, wherein the Appellant has sought to invoke the provisions contained under Section 60(5)(C) of the I & B Code, 2016, to read with Regulations 10, 12-14 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.
The relief that was modulated by the Appellant in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, as preferred before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, was seeking a condonation of 545 days of delay, that has chanced in filing the Applicant’s Claim to the Respondent.
The said Application came up for consideration before the Ld. Tribunal and it had been rejected by the impugned order under challenge dated 18.12.2024.
The instant Company Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved against the said order and had been e-filed before the Registry of this Tribunal only on 03.12.2025.
The Company Appeal is not accompanied with the Certified copy of the impugned order, but, however, the photocopy, which has been appended therein, shows that the copy of the order was made available to the Appellant on 23.09.2025, but, however, the Appeal was preferred by e-filing the same on 03.12.2025. It means that Appellant had knowledge of the proceedings at least from 23.09.2025 and yet the Appeal was filed beyond 45 days, which expired on 07.11.2025. Hence too, the Appeal will be barred by limitation.
There is nothing on record nor pleaded even to show that the Appellant had ever applied for obtaining the Certified copy of the Judgment, within the period of limitation.
It is pertinent to note that, when the proceedings were being taken up before the Ld. Tribunal, they were at the behest of the Appellant only, as against the order of rejection of their claim by the IRP, the knowledge of the proceedings will have to be attributed to the Appellant.
In that eventuality, it becomes all the more necessary that the Appellant ought to have exercised diligence and should have preferred an Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contemplated under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, and he could not take a plea that, he was awaiting the service of the order, even after the expiry of period of limitation and the condonable period as prescribed under the statutes. Hence, the aspect of Limitation is to be decided against the Appellant.
Be that as it may, the Company Appeal is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 1758 / 2025, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 348 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the Appeal, which is otherwise reported by the Registry to be 320 days.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on the ground, which has been taken in Para 4 of the said Application.
Apart from the fact that the reason taken in the Application does not repose much confidence to consider the Condone Delay Application, but, however, under law too, under sub-section (2) of Section 61, since, the upper limit prescribed for preference of an Appeal is 45 days from the date of the pronouncement of the Judgment, which can be at the most construed from the date of the uploading, but, under either set of the circumstances, if the limitation is determined, it will be falling much beyond the period than what is being contemplated under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 61, since, admittedly the delay happens to be of more than 320 days.
Exclusively owing to the aforesaid fact that, since the Company Appeal has been preferred at a much belated stage, the Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 1758 / 2025 would stand rejected and as a consequence thereto, the Company Appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 633 / 2025, would too stand dismissed. The connected pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, would stand closed.