TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date for filing of the Claims was 04.04.2022, the expiry of 90 days is 19.06.2022, whereas the Appellant had filed the Claim before the RP on 07.08.2022, which is indeed the 139th day of the commencement of the CIRP. The ground taken by the Counsel for the Appellant that it was initially filed under Form B as an Operational Creditor which was rejected vide email communication dated 03.08.2022, and thereafter the Appellant had resubmitted her Claim under Form C on 07.08.2022, does not strengthen or substantiate her case as the timelines given under IBC are to be strictly adhered to and any latches on behalf of the Appellant in filing, the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Rathod / the Appellant under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as The Code ), against the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2023 in I.A. No. 1589 of 2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 75 of 2021, whereby the Tribunal/ Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the said Application filed by the Appellant / Applicant herein seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form C . 2. Facts in brief are that I.A. (IBC)/1589 (CHE)/2022 in C.P. (IB)/75/CHE/2021 was filed by the Applicant / Appellant seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim before the Respondent and for acceptance of the Claim . The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP ) of the Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing a Claim as a Financial Creditor is neither willful nor wanton. It is argued by the Learned Counsel that the Adjudicating Authority did not take into consideration the legal arguments of the Appellant and was prejudiced by the Respondents arguments that the Appellant had colluded with the suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor . It is also contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not address to the merits of the matter and has erroneously relied upon Esha Bhattacharjee (Supra), wherein there was almost 7 years delay, whereas in this case, the delay is of a short duration of only 49 days. There is a distinct between an inordinate delay and delay of short duration , which was not addressed to in the Impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has erroneously relied on the Judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in State Tax Officer (1) Vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162, as that case relates to State Tax Claims under Gujarat VAT Act and the Sales Tax Dues were to be treated as dues of a Secured Creditor instead of an Unsecured Creditor. It is submitted that all the decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant are not relevant to the facts of this case and that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly relied upon Esha Bhattacharya (Supra). Assessment: 7. The main issue which arises in this Appeal is whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim together with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the Appellant in filing, the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay. Moreover, keeping in view the aforenoted dates, it is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the Claim Form is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the Appellant approached the Adjudicating Authority , vide I.A.1589/22 with a further delay of 100 days, and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking legal advise , which the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a sufficient cause for the delay . 10. Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Puneet Kaur (Supra), in support of his case that the NCLAT Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
