9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed against the Order dated 25th September, 2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court-II, Kolkata in CP(IB) No. 56 of 2023 by which order Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed. This Appeal has been e-filed on 21st November, 2023. 3. The Application was heard on 21st September, 2023 and the order was pronounced on 25th September, 2023. The ground taken in the Application is that the Appellant received the copy of the order only on 09th October, 2023 which was sent by the Registry; Learned Counsel refers to Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7467 and 7468 of 2023, Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistara (ITCL) India Ltd.& Ors, para 20 as well as Judgment of Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onouncement and do not allow the NCLT to dispense with the requirement of pronouncement. 21. In view of the above, the period of limitation began to run on 30 May 2023. The 30- day limitation period provided in Section 61(2) of the IBC concluded on 29 June 2023. Though the appeal was filed beyond the period of thirty days, it was within the condonable period of fifteen days. We are of the considered view that the appeal should be restored to the NCLAT for reconsidering whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay beyond thirty days. To facilitate this, the impugned order of the NCLAT declining to condone the delay is set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the NCLAT. We are not inclined to st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uncement has been clearly mentioned in the order hence the observation of para 20 in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate has no relevance in the presence case. 9. Lastly, learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that judgment of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate and V Nagarajan were cases where proceedings in CIRP has already been commenced whereas in the present case proceeding was not commenced since Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed as non-maintainable which is distinguishable feature with regard to limitation; we see no relevance in the above submission of appellant qua the question of delay in filing an appeal. 10. The Appeal have been filed beyond 15 days after expiry of the limitation, we are unable to condone the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
