Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 152 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI
Seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form – C - Sufficient cause for delay - whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim together with the delay in filing the Application before the Adjudicating Authority? - HELD THAT:- A brief perusal of the material on record shows that the CIRP commenced on 21.03.2022, a public announcement was made on 25.03.2022, the last date for filing of the Claims was 04.04.2022, the expiry of 90 days is 19.06.2022, whereas the Appellant had filed the Claim before the RP on 07.08.2022, which is indeed the 139th day of the commencement of the CIRP. The ground taken by the Counsel for the Appellant that it was initially filed under Form – B as an Operational Creditor which was rejected vide email communication dated 03.08.2022, and thereafter the Appellant had resubmitted her Claim under Form – C on 07.08.2022, does not strengthen or substantiate her case as the timelines given under IBC are to be strictly adhered to and any latches on behalf of the Appellant in filing, the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay.
It is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the Claim Form is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the Appellant approached the Adjudicating Authority, vide I.A.1522/22 with a further delay of 100 days, and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking legal advise, which the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a sufficient cause for the delay.
Had there been a substantial ground, the case of N BALAKRISHNAN VERSUS M. KRISHNAMURTHY [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT], could have been applied to the matter on hand. But the fact of the matter is that the Appellant has given no substantial grounds to condone the delay. IBC is a time bound process, which has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgements and at the cost of repetition, the explanation given by the Appellant herein is neither substantial nor can be construed as a sufficient cause.
This Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.