Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
⏳ Loading countdown...
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (4) TMI 1288 - AT - IBCCondonation of delay of 283 days in preferring the instant Appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - Scope of Liquidation estate - EPFO are dues payable to workmen and included in liquidation estate or not - HELD THAT - A reading of section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 clearly indicates that after the expiry of 30 days in preferring the Appeal by a party and after the expiry of 30 days a leverage is given to the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay to further extent of 15 days providing sufficient cause as shown on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant in not preferring the Appeal in time. The fact of the matter is beyond 30 15 45 days there is no power to enjoin under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for this Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay of 283 days in the instant case preferred by the Petitioner/Appellant/Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund represented by its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Kukatpally. Appeal dismissed.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, dismissed IA/371/2024 seeking condonation of a 283-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, EPFO, argued the delay was due to internal procedural requirements and the dues pertained to workmen, thus outside the liquidation estate. However, the Tribunal emphasized that Section 61(2) permits condonation of delay only up to 45 days (30 days plus an additional 15 days) upon showing sufficient cause. Since the delay far exceeded this statutory limit, the Tribunal held it had "no power to enjoin" condonation beyond 45 days. Consequently, the application was found "devoid of any merits" and dismissed, and the underlying appeal was rejected. No costs were imposed.
|