State Of Tamilnadu, State Tax Department vs S. Rajagopal, Liquidator & Anr.

Heard Mr. G. Dinesh Kumar, Learned representing Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Appellant/Department.

According to the Petitioner/Appellant, the certified copy of the impugned order in IA No. 888/2023 in Company Appeal(AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 292/2023 in CP(IB)/283/(CB)/2018 was passed on 09.12.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal and the Appellant/Petitioner secured the impugned order copy on 03.01.2023.

The reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner is that Petitioner/Appellant is having an office at ‘Kumbakonam’, it is not feasible to collate the entire record and transfer it to Chennai. Moreover, the certified copy of the order was obtained on 03.01.2023. Subsequently the Petitioner/Appellant had sent the drafted copy of the appeal, for an approval of the parties, which took time and resulted in a delay of 15 days, in executing the necessary drafts and filing of the instant appeal.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant points out in view of the above appeal being filed after the expiry of 30 days and in fact there was a delay of 15 days (after the expiry of 30 days’ limit) as per Section 61(1) of the I&B Code, 2016, the delay of 15 days is to be condoned in the interest of justice, based on the reasons mentioned SUPRA.

To be noted, that as per Section 61(1) of the Code, an ‘Appeal’ has to be preferred in respect of the ‘impugned order’, as an ‘aggrieved’ person, of course, within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order made by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal.

In reality, the Appellate Tribunal, is given the discretion, as per Section 61(2) of the Code, to condone the delay, not exceeding 15 days, of course, if it is subjectively satisfied as to the reasons assigned by a person, in regard to the delay that has occurred.

On being subjectively satisfied, after the reasons ascribed in IA No. 888/2023 in Company Appeal(AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 292/2023 by the Petitioner/Appellant, this Tribunal, without adopting a pedantic approach or hyper technical approach, condones the delay of 15 days (after the expiry of 30 days) from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 09.12.2022, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice. No Costs.

Heard the Learned Counsel Mr. G. Dinesh Kumar, representing Mr. B. Vijay, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in the main appeal in Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No. 292 of 2023 at the ‘admission stage’, itself.

According to the Appellant, Impugned order dated09.12.2022 in IA No. 851/IB/2020 in MA/175/2019 in CP/IB/283/CB/2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in dismissing the said application is an incorrect one because of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal had not taken into consideration of the fact, that the ‘claim’ was filed on 12.08.2020, that the date of filing of the claim had expired on 12.04.2019 being the last date.

Upon perusing the impugned order in IA No. 888/2023 in Company Appeal(AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 292/2023, this Tribunal, is of the considered view that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/Tribunal had categorically opined that the Appellant/Applicant who had filed the said IA u/s 60(5) of the I&B Code, 2016, (Dealing with the ‘question of fact’ and the ‘question of priorities’) had not filed the said application under Section 42 of the Code, because of the simple fact that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ was under liquidation.

Added further, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/Tribunal had proceeded to observe in the impugned order that the Petitioner/Appellant had not pleaded anywhere, in the application as to the reason(s) of the rejection of the claim, but only quoted the ‘legal provisions of GST’.

It is to be borne in mind that ‘speed’, is the essence of the I&B Code, 2016. The I&B Code, 2016 envisages time bound resolution of insolvency matters and the purpose for which the said code is enacted will get defeated if the ingredients of the code were not adhered to by the stakeholders’ concerned.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that IBC, 2016 is a ‘Time Bound Process’ and also the ‘Liquidator’ is bound to adhere to the I&B Code, 2016 provisions and Regulations etc., to complete the legal proceedings of course, within a period of one year, from the date of ‘commencement of Liquidation’, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly dismissed the said IA No. 851/IB/2020 in MA/175/2019 in CP/IB/283/CB/2018 by adducing cogent, coherent and tenable reasons. Suffice it for this Tribunal to pertinently point out that it is in complete agreement with a view arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal in dismissing the IA No. 851/IB/2020 in MA/175/2019 in CP/IB/283/CB/2018, which in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, does not call for any interference by this Appellate Tribunal, sitting in an Appellate Jurisdiction.

With the aforesaid observations the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No. 292 of 2023 stands disposed of.