9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1096 - AT - IBCRejection of claim filed with the Liquidator on Form-C in respect of outstanding dues against the Corporate Debtor - rejection on the ground that the claim has been filed belatedly after a delay of 102 days which was not within the statutory timelines prescribed under the Code and the Liquidation Regulations - HELD THAT - The Ld. Tribunal in the penultimate paragraph No. 6 has categorically recorded that In view of the above and perused the material available on record this bench finds that the reasons for delay is not properly given in the application which means that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the decision in the case of Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited vs. Priyadarsini Limited Rep by Liquidator Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi 2023 (7) TMI 1580 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD which was on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal under Section 42 of the Code and not the condonation of delay in filing the claim before the Liquidator. In this case that the impugned order is totally confusing as to whether it has decided the appeal or rejected the claim of the appellant and also the impugned order is totally non-speaking therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal to decide the issue raised by the appellant and contested by the respondent afresh. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal seized of the Liquidation Proceedings to decide the appeal in accordance with law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether the appeal under Section 42 of the Code was dismissed on the ground of limitation despite being filed within the statutory period Legal framework and precedents: Section 42 of the Code provides the right to appeal against orders of the Liquidator. The timelines for filing claims and appeals are prescribed under the Code and Liquidation Regulations. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the NCLT Hyderabad Bench in Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited vs. Priyadarsini Limited, which dealt with condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 42. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order relied heavily on the Southern Power Distribution case to refuse condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the Court found ambiguity in the impugned order as to whether the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on merits or solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal's own observation that "the reasons for delay is not properly given in the application" indicates a focus on limitation rather than substantive adjudication. Key evidence and findings: The appellant filed the appeal on 05.09.2023, which was within the statutory period. The rejection of the claim by the Liquidator was communicated on 23.08.2023, and the appeal was filed within the prescribed time. The Tribunal's reliance on delay appears misplaced. Application of law to facts: The Court noted that the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation without proper explanation or consideration of the appellant's submissions on delay, which was inconsistent with the statutory framework. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued the absence of adequate explanation for the delay, but the Court observed that the impugned order was non-speaking and did not clarify whether the delay related to the claim or the appeal. Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds was not justified as the appeal was filed within time, and the impugned order failed to clearly address this issue. Issue 2: Whether the Liquidator had jurisdiction to consider a belated claim and whether the delay in filing the claim could be condoned Legal framework and precedents: The Code and Liquidation Regulations prescribe timelines for submission of claims to the Liquidator. The question arises whether these timelines are mandatory or directory, and whether the Liquidator can entertain belated claims. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant contended that the timelines for claim submission are directory, not mandatory, and thus the Liquidator ought to have considered the claim despite delay. The respondent countered that the claim was barred by delay and that the appellant had filed a separate application (I.A. No. 1342 of 2025) for the said amount. Key evidence and findings: The claim filed by the appellant was for Rs. 21,83,14,789/- relating to rental dues since 2018. The Liquidator rejected the claim on 23.08.2023 citing a delay of 102 days beyond the deadline of 16.04.2023. The Tribunal did not address this substantive issue in the impugned order. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the issue of the Liquidator's jurisdiction to entertain belated claims was raised but not adjudicated by the Tribunal. This non-consideration rendered the impugned order non-speaking. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant emphasized the legal issue of directory versus mandatory timelines, while the respondent relied on procedural rejection and separate applications. The Court noted the absence of adjudication on this point. Conclusion: The Liquidator's rejection of the claim on delay without adjudication of the directory/mandatory nature of timelines was not addressed by the Tribunal and requires fresh consideration. Issue 3: Whether the impugned order was a speaking order addressing merits or merely procedural Legal framework and precedents: A speaking order must address all material issues raised and provide reasons for the decision. Non-speaking orders are liable to be set aside and remanded. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned order was "totally confusing" and "non-speaking," as it failed to clarify whether it decided the appeal on merits or merely refused condonation of delay. The order did not consider the substantive legal issues raised by the appellant. Key evidence and findings: Paragraph 5 of the impugned order relied on a precedent about condonation of delay but did not clarify the basis of dismissal. Paragraph 6 recorded that reasons for delay were not properly given but did not address merits. Application of law to facts: The impugned order's failure to address the substantive appeal and the legal questions raised rendered it inadequate. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal on delay, but the Court found that the order did not sufficiently explain this conclusion. Conclusion: The impugned order is non-speaking and requires remand for fresh adjudication. Issue 4: Whether the matter requires remand for fresh adjudication considering all raised issues Legal framework and precedents: When an order is non-speaking or fails to address material issues, the appellate authority may set aside and remand the matter for fresh consideration. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court concluded that due to the impugned order's ambiguity and failure to consider substantive issues, the matter must be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's appeal was dismissed without proper reasoning, and the legal issues regarding limitation and Liquidator's jurisdiction were not addressed. Application of law to facts: The Court restored the appeal and directed the Tribunal to decide it afresh, leaving the merits open. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's opposition to remand was overruled in light of the deficiencies in the impugned order. Conclusion: The appeal is allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "In view of the above and perused the material available on record, this bench finds that, the reasons for delay is not properly given in the application" - indicating that the Tribunal's decision was based on inadequate explanation for delay but did not clarify whether it addressed the appeal on merits or limitation. "The impugned order is totally confusing as to whether it has decided the appeal or rejected the claim of the appellant and also the impugned order is totally non-speaking, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal to decide the issue raised by the appellant and contested by the respondent afresh." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
