2023 (8) TMI 1466 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - delay of 38 days beyond the expiry of limitation - application u/s 7 has been dismissed as non-maintainable - HELD THAT - The present is a case where it cannot be held that the application filed for restoration was in a wrong forum which could not be decided for the defect of jurisdiction or of like nature. Conditions as contemplated u/s 14 are not attracted to extend the benefit u/s 14 to the Appellant. The judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Singh Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. Anr. 2021 (3) TMI 1183 - SUPREME COURT was a case where the benefit was extended u/s 14 of the Limitation Act with regard to period during which writ petition was pending challenging the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Hon ble Supreme Court in the said judgement has taken the view that the benefit of the proceedings could have been extended for the purpose - It was held that since SARFAESI proceedings which were stayed by the High Court which proceedings by the Cooperative Bank were without jurisdiction due to which the Financial Creditor was unable to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act - The facts of the case Sesh Nath Singh Anr. are entirely different and are not attracted in the present case. The Appellant has placed reliance on another judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Ricel Mill Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Anr. 2022 (12) TMI 822 - SUPREME COURT In the case before the Supreme Court the writ petition was filed in High Court and thereafter proceedings were initiated and the appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal for exclusion of the period. The Hon ble Supreme Court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the appeal on merits - The above case was again the case where benefit of section 14 was allowed due to the proceedings of writ petition which was held has not maintainable. The facts of the said case are also entirely different. Appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act - the jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to only 15 days - the prayer to condone the delay of 38 days beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be accepted. The application for condonation of delay is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 7.

Summary:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was dismissed as non-maintainable. The appellant sought exclusion of time u/s 14 of the Limitation Act based on a restoration application. However, the Tribunal found that the conditions for granting the benefit u/s 14 were not met. Reference was made to judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal to support the decision. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from cases where the benefit of u/s 14 was allowed due to specific circumstances like proceedings under SARFAESI Act or a writ petition. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of u/s 14 and rejected the application for condonation of delay, as their jurisdiction to condone the delay was limited to only 15 days.

In the first issue, the appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 7, citing a restoration application filed after the initial order was passed. The appellant argued for the exclusion of time u/s 14 of the Limitation Act based on this application, but the Tribunal found that the conditions for granting such benefit were not met in this case. The Tribunal referred to relevant judgments to support its decision and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of u/s 14.

In the second issue, the Tribunal discussed a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where exclusion of time u/s 14 was allowed due to the filing of a writ petition. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the present one and emphasized that the circumstances were different. The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of u/s 14 and rejected the application for condonation of delay, as their jurisdiction to condone the delay was limited to only 15 days.