Shreesha Merla ORDER
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Member (J))
1. The Appellant has challenged the Order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - I, Chennai dated 12.05.2023, by which an Application bearing IA/846(CHE)/2020 in CP/514/(IB)/CB/2017 filed by the Liquidator under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for short `The Code') for certain directions has been disposed of.
2. The Appeal has been filed with an Application bearing I.A. No.671/2023 for seeking Condonation of Delay of 13 days in filing the present Appeal.
3. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the delay of 13 days in filing of the Appeal has been caused because the Appellant came to know about the Order dated 12.05.2023 only on 27.05.2023 because the Appellant was Ex-Parte before the Tribunal and took time in filing of the Appeal because the voluminous record relating to the previous proceedings was to be traced.
4. We have heard Counsel for the Applicant on the Application for Condonation of Delay and perused the Application.
5. The Right to Appeal is a Statutory Right in view of Section 61 of the Code, which is reproduced as hereunder:
"61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.
(3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely: -
(i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force;
(ii) there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period;
(iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board;
(iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or
(v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board.
(4) An appeal against a liquidation order passed under section 33, or sub-section (4) of section 54L, or sub-section (4) of section 54N, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such a liquidation order.
(5) An appeal against an order for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process passed under sub-section (2) of section 54-O, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such an order."
6. Section 61(1) provides the Right of Appeal to any person, aggrieved by an Order of the Adjudicating Authority, before the Appellate Tribunal. Section 61(2) provides a statutory period of 30 days for filing such an Appeal in terms of Section 61(1), meaning thereby the Appeal under Section 61(1) can be filed upto a period of 30 days as a matter of right. But the proviso in Section 61(2) extends the period of Limitation beyond the period of 30 days but only upto a period of 15 days for which the Applicant has to assign a sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Appellate Tribunal for not filing the Appeal in time prescribed under Section 61(2).
7. In the present case, the Impugned Order was passed on 12.05.2023. The period of 30 days had expired on 11.06.2023 whereas the Appeal alongwith the Application for Condonation of Delay was filed on 26.06.2023. The reason given by the Appellant is that the Appellant was Ex- Parte before the Learned Tribunal in IA/846(CHE)/2020 in which the Impugned Order has been passed about which it came to know only on 27.05.2023. But no evidence is brought on record even prima facie to prove that the Appellant acquired the knowledge only on 27.05.2023.
8. The Applicant has further submitted that it had to consult voluminous record of the period from 2018, onwards because of which, the delay of 13 days had occurred. We have thoroughly examined submission and have found that the Appellant has been thoroughly casual in this Litigation because it did not contest the Application in which the Impugned Order was passed because it itself has mentioned in the Application that it was Ex-Parte in that proceedings. It has not brought on record any evidence as to how it came to know about the Order dated 12.05.2023 on 27.05.2023 and the other reason that the Appellant/Applicant had to consult voluminous record is also seems to be a lame excuse for the purpose of seeking Condonation of Delay.
9. It is to be borne in mind that the legislature has provided only a period of 30 days for the purpose of filing of an Appeal in order to ensure expeditious disposal of the Litigation arising out of the Code and has further provided a window of only 15 days to the Appellate Tribunal to consider an Application for Condonation of Delay that too on being satisfied that there was a sufficient cause with the Appellant/Applicant for not approaching the Court by way of an Appeal in time (within the period of 30 days as prescribed).
10. Thus, looking from any angle, we do not find any substance in the present Application as it does not inspire confidence for the purpose of constituting a sufficient cause to our satisfaction.
Hence, the Application is hereby dismissed.
Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.205/2023:
Since we have dismissed the Application for Condonation of Delay by an Order of even date, therefore, the present Appeal is not found to be duly constituted and the same is also hereby dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.