TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exists a sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal within the prescribed time then it can be entertained. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Mr. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Limited [ 2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] , dealing with this aspect of the matter that as to whether the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 15 days provided in the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code held that there was a delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal which was beyond the period of 15 days which maximum could have been condoned and in view of specific statutory provision contained in Section 61(2) of the IB Code, it cannot be said that the NCLAT has committed any error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation by observing that it has no jurisdiction and/or power to condone the delay exceeding 15 days. No explanation has been given anywhere in the Application for not filing the Appeal within the time prescribed under the Statute. It is rather the case of the Appellant that the Appeal has been filed only 3 days before the expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieves/waivers/concessions sought by it, has been allowed and disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the said Order. 2. The present Appeal has been filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs alongwith an Application bearing I.A. No.720/2023, seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing of this Appeal. 3. Since the main Appeal cannot be heard and decided until and unless the Application for Condonation of Delay is decided, therefore, we have called upon the Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant to make his submission on the Application for Condonation of Delay at the first instance. 4. While arguing the Application for Condonation of Delay, Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant has submitted that the Appellant was not a party to the Interlocutory Application and was not having any knowledge about the Order dated 01.12.2022. It is submitted that the Liquidator filed I.A. No.475/2022 for the same relief in which the Appellant was a contesting Party. The said Application came up for hearing on 10.03.2023 and at the time of hearing of the said Application, the Liquidator cited the Order already passed in I.A. No.960/2022 dated 01.12.2022, on the basis of which, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board; (iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or (v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board. (4) An appeal against a liquidation order passed under section 33, or sub-section (4) of section 54L, or sub- section (4) of section 54N, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such a liquidation order. (5) An appeal against an order for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process passed under sub-section (2) of section 54-O, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such an order. 9. Section 61(1) provides that any person who is aggrieved against the Order of the Adjudicating Authority can prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. 10. Section 61(2) lays down the period within which the Appeal under Section 61(1) is to be filed. The said period has been fixed as 30 days. However, Section 61(2) proviso furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be said that the NCLAT has committed any error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation by observing that it has no jurisdiction and/or power to condone the delay exceeding 15 days. 12. Though the Limitation has to be counted from the date of the passing of the Order i.e., 01.12.2022 and in such circumstances, the period of 30 days would have expired on 01.01.2023 and the extended period of 15 days by 16.01.2023. However, even if the argument of the Appellant is accepted that since it was not a party in the I.A. in which the Impugned Order was passed and came to know only on 10.03.2023 and thereafter, administrative steps were taken for filing the Appeal, then it is really strange as to why the Appeal could not be filed by the Department of Custom (Appellant) within a period of prescribed 30 days. No explanation has been given anywhere in the Application for not filing the Appeal within the time prescribed under the Statute. It is rather the case of the Appellant that the Appeal has been filed only 3 days before the expiry of the extended period of 15 days without giving any further explanation about the laxity on the part of the Appellant in not filing the Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
