9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the NCLT under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IBC') against one Dunar Foods Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporate Debtor') on the ground that Corporate Debtor had taken credit limits by hypothecating the commodities kept in the warehouses of the appellant - National Spot Exchange Limited; that the NCLT admitted the petition and commenced the corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor under the provisions of the IBC. Interim Resolution Professional (for short, 'IRP') was appointed. IRP invited the claims from the creditors of the corporate debtor - Dunar Foods Limited on or before 17.01.2018; that the appellant herein submitted its claim and also forwarded its claim through courier to IRP as per Form 'F' of the IBC. At this stage it is required to be noted that the appellant herein earlier filed Money Suit against one PD Agro Processors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PD Agro') and the corporate debtor being Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2014 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court vide order dated 11.04.2014 in Notice of Motion 807 of 2014 in CS No. 328 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther delay of 44 days beyond a total period of 45 days. Therefore, considering sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the IBC which provides for powers to the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay of only 15 days which it can condone over the period of 30 days, if there is a sufficient cause, by the impugned order, the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 15 days and thereby the appeal is barred by limitation. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned NCLAT in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and refusing to condone the delay which was beyond the period of 15 days, which the Appellate Tribunal could have condoned, the appellant - National Spot Exchange Limited has preferred the present appeal. 5. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Abhishek, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the IRP. 5.1 Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that though the learned Appellate Tribunal may be justified in dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e perspective and has not even lifted the corporate veil which ought to have been done in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that therefore in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where a huge amount of Rs. 693 crores is involved, which is due and payable to the appellant herein, which can be said to be a public body which provided an electronic exchange platform which commenced its operations after the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India granted it an exemption under Section 27 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 to launch one-day forward contracts for buying and selling of commodities and therefore it is prayed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the NCLAT, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Chitra Sharma v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 575; Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. IDBI Bank Limited, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 328; and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship is no ground not to give effect to the mandate of Parliament and that law overrides equitable considerations. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of this Court, Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 451 (paras 23 to 26); CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Mishri Lal, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 739 (para 20); Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 230 (paras 29 to 37); Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 (para 16); and The Martin Burn Limited v. The Corporation of Calcutta, reported in AIR 1966 SC 529 (para 14). 6.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions and the relevant provisions of the statute, namely, Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Code, it is submitted that as such no error has been committed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in not condoning the delay beyond the period of 15 days, over the period of 30 days. It is submitted that as such the learned Appellate Tribunal has acted just in consonance with the provisions of the statute and has followed the statutory provisions strictly. 6.5 Now so far as the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 6.3.2019 affirming the decision of the resolution professional of rejection of the claim of the appellant before the NCLAT. The appeal preferred before the NCLAT was under Section 61(2) of the IB Code. As per Section 61(2) of the IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of thirty days. Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the IB Code. Section 61(2) of the IB Code reads as under: "Section 61(2) - Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciliation Act, 1996. In paragraphs 11 & 12, it is observed and held as under: "11. Thus, where the legislature prescribed a special limitation for the purpose of the appeal and the period of limitation of 60 days was to be computed after taking the aid of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, the specific inclusion of these sections meant that to that extent only the provisions of the Limitation Act stood extended and the applicability of the other provisions, by necessary implication stood excluded. 12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are "but not thereafter" used in the proviso to sub-section (3). In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of Section 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase "but not thereafter" wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result." 8.1 An identical question came to be considered by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. (Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265; and D. D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 235). 24. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661 it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon, to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, 'dura lex sed lex' which mean "the law is hard but it is the law." may be used to sum up the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation. 25. In Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128, a Constitution Bench of this Court hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vide para 35) this Court observed: "35. In a case where the statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, the court shall not interpret the same in a different manner, only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom." 35. Similarly in E. Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., 2003(1) SCC 123 (vide para 5) this Court observed: "Equitable considerations have no place where the statute contained express provisions". 36. In India House vs. Kishan N. Lalwani, 2003(9) SCC 393 (vide para 7) this Court held that: "The period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed or departed from by equitable considerations." (Emphasis supplied) 37. In the present case, while equity is in favour of the respondent-Bank, the law is in favour of the appellant, since we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court is clearly in violation of Section 31 of the RDB Act, and moreover the claim is time-barred in view of Article 136 of the Limitation Act read with Section 24 of the RDB Act. We cannot but comment that it is the Bank itself which is to blame because after its first Execution Petition was dismissed on 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court, the question was with respect to delay beyond 120 days in preferring the appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act and the question arose whether the delay beyond 120 days in preferring the appeal is condonable or not. After considering various earlier decisions of this Court on the point and considering the language used in Section 125 [2] of the Electricity Act which provided that delay beyond 120 days is not condonable, this Court has observed and held that it is not condonable and it cannot be condoned, even taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution. While observing and holding so in para-16, this Court has observed and held as under:- "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear as crystal that the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Association [AIR 1988 SC 1895] [Supra] has ruled that there is no conflict of opinion in Antulay's case [AIR 1988 SC 1531] or in Union Carbide Corporation's case with the principle set-down in Prem Chand Garg & Anr. v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996. Be it noted, when there is a statutory command by the legislation as regards limitation and there is the postulate that delay can be condoned for a furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
