9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /512(CHE)/2022 in TCP/95/IB/2017 (filed by the 'Petitioner / Appellant'), passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Special Bench - I, Chennai), on 13.08.2022, before this 'Tribunal'. 3. According to the 'Petitioner / Appellant', it was unable to file the instant 'Appeal', within the 'Statutorily Mandated Period', as it was facing some 'financial issues', due to the sudden turn of 'Economic Events', caused by the 'Russian Ukraine War'. As such, a considerable period of time got expired. If the Condonation of Delay Application (IA No. 89 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No 443 of 2022), is not 'allowed', in favour of the 'Petitioner / Appellant', it will cause great prejudice and injustice to it, therefore, the 'Petitioner / Appellant', had sought for the 'Relief' of 'Condonation of Delay of 15 days', in IA No. 89 of 2023, in preferring the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022, before this 'Tribunal', in the interest of justice. 4. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that, Rule 31 of NCLAT Rules, 2016, clearly enjoins, that; "Every interlocutory application for stay, direction, condonation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill 31.05.2022, for payment of 'Balance Sale Consideration'. In reality, a 'Memo' dated 16.06.2022 was filed by the 'Petitioner / Applicant / Appellant', before the 'Adjudicating Authority', seeking further extension of time, till 30.06.2022, for the payment of 'Balance Sale Consideration'. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, adverts to the 'Order' dated 29.06.2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), in IA(IBC)/512(CHE)/2022 in TCP/95/IB/2017, which run as under: "(a). The Applicant is directed to pay on or before 30.06.2022 the balance 50% of the sale consideration i.e. 34.60 Crore with 12% interest from 15.04.2022 till the date of payment. (b). The remaining sum of Rs.34.60 Crore shall be paid on or before 31.07.2022 with 12% interest from 15.04.2022 till the date of payment. (c). The Applicant is directed to strictly comply with the said timelines. Any deviation from the same would amount to forfeiture of the entire amount paid by the Applicant." 9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that, despite the aforesaid 'Order' dated 29.06.2022, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), the 'Petitioner / Appellant', had failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir action in not filing an appeal on time. That apart, even after the second application filed before the NCLT for extension of time was dismissed on 10.08.2022, the petitioner had four days to file the appeal. On the other hand, the petitioner chose to file Writ Petition challenging the order dated 29.06.2022 only on 05.09.2022." 13. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the Respondent is unaware as to the real / actual date of filing of the instant 'Interlocutory Petition', together with Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (INS.) 443 of 2022, and the 'discrepancies' in 'Appeal' papers, served on the Respondent, on 10.01.2023 and 25.01.2023, shows the 'Mala fide Intention' of the 'Petitioner / Appellant', in endeavouring to play 'Fraud', by filing 'False' and 'Fabricated Documents'. 14. On behalf of the 'Petitioner / Appellant', the details of 'Dates and Events', are given as under: Date Particulars Number of Days 29 June 2022 Date of Impugned Order 2 July 2022 Date on which the Impugned Order was made available on the NCLT website Period to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963: (A) 12 29 July 2022 Application for modific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings or appeals, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('NCLT'), the 'National Company Law Appellate Tribunal', the 'Debt Recovery Tribunal' or the 'Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal', as per Section 238-A of the I & B Code, 2016 (Inserted by Act 26 of 2018, S.34 (w.r.e.f..6-6-2018). 17. Although, the 'Petitioner/Appellant', seeks umbrage under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the time spent in 'Bona fide Litigious Activity', in a given 'Proceeding(s)', the fact of the matter is that the 'Petitioner / Appellant', has preferred the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 443 of 2022 on 13.08.2022. 18. In response, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is 'inapplicable', to the 'Petitioner /Appellant', because of the fact the 'Petitioner / Appellant', had taken recourse to some proceedings, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('NCLT'), etc., since the proper course of action for the 'Petitioner / Appellant' is that, it should have preferred an 'Appeal', before this 'Tribunal' (under Section 61 (1) of the I & B Code, 2016), against the 'impugned order' dated 29.06.2022 in IA(IBC)/512(CHE)/2022 in TC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Petitioner / Appellant', has preferred Comp. App (AT) (CH) INS.) No. 443 of 2022, (before this 'Tribunal'), against the 'Impugned Order' dated 29.06.2022 in IA(IBC)/512(CHE)/2022 in TCP / 95 / IB / 2017 on 13.08.2022 (vide Filing No.: 9805118 / 01737 / 2022), on the File of the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Special Bench - I, Chennai). 26. To be noted, that the 'Petitioner / Appellant', ought to have filed the instant 'Company Appeal', being 'Aggrieved', against the 'impugned order' dated 29.06.2022, in IA(IBC)/512(CHE)/2022 in TCP/95/IB/2017, within '30 days', from the 'date of passing of the said Order', by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal'), as per Section 61 (2) of the I & B Code, 2016. Further, if 'Sufficient Cause', is furnished by a 'Person' / 'Party', in not 'Preferring an Appeal within 30 days time', as adumbrated by the 'Code', the 'Appellate Tribunal' ('NCLAT'), while exercising its 'sound Judicial discretion', may permit an 'Appeal', to be preferred as per the 'expiry' / 'lapse' of prescribed '30 days' time, on being satisfied as to the 'Sufficient Cause', projected by the 'Person' / 'Party', as the case may be. 27. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
