9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 17 - AT - IBCCondonation of delay of 160 days in refiling the appeal - sufficient cause for the delay in refiling the appeal or not - HELD THAT - The impugned order was passed on 26.04.2024 and the appeal was filed on the 45th day and the appellant has sought condonation of 15 days delay which was condoned. On condoning the refiling delay of 160 days explanation provided by the Appellant does not inspire much confidence. The Appellant was intimated about the defects on 02.07.2024. As per Rule 26 of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 defects were to be removed within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notification of defects. But the defects were finally cured on 16.12.2014 which is a delay of almost 160 days. The appellant has been sitting tight and was not pursuing his case for curing the defects. The explanation provided is not sufficient to condone the delay in refiling. Even now the case has been taken up with defects. If the appellant was not able to cure the defects he could have mentioned the matter before this Tribunal for listing it with defects on an earlier date also. The appellant has been negligent in prosecuting the removing the defects which indicates that he was not diligent. Thus the delay in refiling for 160 days is not explained satisfactorily. Keeping the provisions of the IBC 2016 in mind which aims to complete all proceedings in a time bound manner the cause shown for refiling of the case is not sufficient. Conclusion - Sufficient cause has not been shown for the condonation of delay of 160 days. The condonation of delay Applications are dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the delay of 160 days in refiling the appeal should be condoned under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). 2. Whether the appellant provided sufficient cause for the delay in refiling the appeal. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Appeal Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework governing the condonation of delay in the context of the IBC is stringent. The power to condone delay is limited and conditional upon showing sufficient cause. The IBC aims to streamline insolvency proceedings and minimize delays, as emphasized in precedents such as V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. and Others, where the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adhering to timelines under the IBC. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed under the IBC. It noted that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 160-day delay in refiling the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant's reasons, such as the need for better copies of documents and coordination between counsels, were insufficient to justify the delay. Key evidence and findings: The appellant claimed that the delay was due to the need for better copies of documents and coordination between counsels. However, the Tribunal found these reasons unconvincing and noted that the appellant had been negligent in pursuing the case. The Tribunal also observed that the appellant was informed of the defects on 02.07.2024, and as per Rule 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, the defects should have been rectified within 7 days. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of the IBC, which emphasize timely resolution of insolvency proceedings, to the facts of the case. It concluded that the appellant's explanations did not meet the stringent requirements for condonation of delay under the IBC. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the appellant's reasons were generic and unsubstantiated. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that the appellant's explanations lacked sufficient backing and evidence. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the condonation of the 160-day delay in refiling the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines under the IBC and dismissed the applications for condonation of delay. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. and Others: "The law on limitation with respect to IBC is settled and emphatic in its denunciation of delays. The power to condone delay is tightly circumscribed and conditional upon showing sufficient cause." Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that the IBC requires strict adherence to timelines to ensure efficient resolution of insolvency proceedings. The power to condone delay is limited and requires a compelling justification. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, finding that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the 160-day delay in refiling the appeal. Consequently, the related Company Appeals were also dismissed.
|
