Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 417 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApplication for Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form – C dismissed - the Claim was filed belatedly by the Applicant after the expiry of 90th day on 06.08.2022 - 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. Moreover, keeping in view the aforenoted dates, 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.1589/22 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’. Reliance placed on ‘Puneet Kaur’ [2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI], in support of his case that the NCLAT Principal Bench condoned the delay of the Homebuyers in filing their ‘Claims’. The facts in that matter are distinguishable as the case relates to Homebuyers where there were Builder Buyer Agreements (‘BBA’) and it was held that rightfully some provisions in the Plan/submission of Claims are to be made for the genuine Homebuyers. This decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. Appeal dismissed.
|