SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

Cloud9 Apartment Owners Association vs. Mohit Goyal and Anr. - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (12 May 2023)

Limitation to file an appeal is only upto 45 days out of which the period of fifteen days can be used for the purpose of extension of period of limitation on assigning sufficient cause

MANU/NL/0446/2023

Insolvency

The present appeal has been filed by 'Cloud9 Apartment Owner Association' who did not file the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days plus 15 days. The Petitioner submits that, the appeal against the impugned order of the NCLT could not be filed within the limitation period of 45 days period, in view of the fact that the Petitioner is a registered Apartment Owners Association and it took time in putting the association together. Moreover, as recorded in the order dated 22nd February 2023, 80% - 90% of the project is completed, which in the opinion of this Court is an important fact that ought to be considered before the Resolution Process under the provisions of IBC commences and is given effect to.

It is provided in Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) that, if any person is aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, he may prefer an appeal to this Tribunal. Section 61(2) of the IBC provides that, every such appeal provided under Section 61(1) of IBC shall be filed within thirty days before this Tribunal and proviso to Section 61(2) of IBC says that the period of 30 days allowed to file the appeal can further be extended to 15 days and not thereafter. Meaning thereby, the limitation to file an appeal before this Tribunal is only upto 45 days out of which the period of fifteen days can be used by the Appellant for the purpose of extension of period of limitation on assigning sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority for condonation of delay.

In the present case, admittedly within the period of 30 days and even the extended period of 15 days i.e. 45 days, no appeal was filed rather the Writ Petition was filed before the High Court in which the aforesaid order has been passed.

Present Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay after a period of 45 days in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Spot Exchange Limited vs. Anil Kohli Resolution Professional for Dunar foods Limited. Hence, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : STATUTORY PERIOD   DELAY   CONDONATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved