The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And Recovery Officer vs Maligi Madhusudhana Reddy

Heard Mr. R. Vishnu, Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ in IA No.1350/2023 (Condone Delay Application). According to the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ / ‘The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer’, the instant Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.438/2023 is filed before the ‘Office of the Registry’ on 07.02.2023 and further that the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, was not a party to the original proceedings before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’. As such, the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ had applied for the Certified Copy of that Impugned Order dated 01.09.2022 on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’.

According to the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, it is calculated from the point of view of the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, the delay of 83 days is to be calculated from 28.10.2022 to 18.01.2023, after the lapse of 30 days of Limitation period from 13.09.2022. The said delay of 83 days is incorrect and according to ‘the Office of the Registry’, there had occasioned a delay of 130 days, in preferring the Appeal by the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, admittedly on 07.02.2023.

It is to be noted, that as per Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the delay preferred by `any person aggrieved’ in respect of the Impugned Order, passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’, within ‘30 days’, from the date of pronouncement of the Order. As per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the `Appellate Tribunal’, is enjoined with `discretionary powers’, to be exercised for a period, not `exceeding 15 days (after the expiry of 30 days)’, provided a sufficient cause, is shown before this `Tribunal’.

Admittedly, in the instant case, according to ‘the Office of the Registry’ of NCLAT, Chennai Bench, the Application for the condonation delay of 83 days as mentioned in Paragraph 10 of this Interlocutory Application, is an incorrect one. It cannot be further emphasised that on behalf of (30 + 15 = 45 days), being the outer limit as described, under the Section 61(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the `Appellate Tribunal’, has `no powers to condone the delay’ and that too an `inordinate delay of 130 days’, in preferring the instant `Appeal’, by the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ / ‘The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer’. Viewed in that perspective, the condonation of delay of 130 days, in preferring the instant `Appeal’, IA No. 1350 / 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 438 / 2023, sans merits and accordingly, it fails.

Resultantly, the IA No.1350/2023 in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.438/2023 is `Dismissed’ with costs of Rs.3,000/-, to be paid by the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ / ‘The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer’ to the `Prime Minister’s Relief Fund’, within ‘two weeks’ from ‘Today’ and to produce the copy of the Receipt, before the Deputy Registrar, NCLAT, Chennai Bench, for the purpose of keeping the said `Receipt’, among the records of instant `Appeal’.

In view of the dismissal of IA No.1350/2023, the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.438/2023 is not entertained by this `Tribunal’, and the same is hereby ‘dismissed’. The connected pending IA Nos. 1348, 1351, 1347 & 1343/2023 are `Closed’.