TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, 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'. The Appellant placed reliance on PUNEET KAUR VERSUS KV DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MR. PANKAJ NARANG, COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS, CONSORTIUM OF SUMIT KUMAR KHANNA AND M/S. BRIJ KISHORE TRADING PVT. LTD. [ 2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] , in support of his case that the NCLAT Principal Bench condoned the delay of the Homebuyers in filing their Claims. The facts in that matter are distinguishable as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndonation 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 'Corporate Debtor' was initiated on 21.03.2022 and the public announcement was made on 23.03.2022, the last date for submission of 'Claim' being 04.04.2022. Admittedly, the 'Claim' was filed belatedly by the 'Applicant' after the expiry of 90th day on 06.08.2022. 3. It is observed in the 'Impugned Order' that the I.A. was signed by the 'Appellant'/'Applicant' on 26.11.2022 and e-filed before the 'Adjudicating Authority' on 28.11.2022. The 'Adjudicating Authority' has noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 'Impugned Order'. The non-Condonation of Delay would affect the rights of the party and the 'Adjudicating Authority' is vested with 'inherent powers' to condone the same. 5. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgement of the NCLAT Principal Bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 delay in filing the Application before the 'Adjudicating Authority'. 8. It is the case of the Appellant that being a domicile of Madurai, he found it difficult to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
