9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing on 11.11.2024. In the original application filed by the Applicant for seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal, the justification given for justifying the refiling delay is as reproduced below: "1. The Captioned Appeal was filed on 01.06.2024. 2. The Defect Sheet was collected by the counsel for the Appellant from the Registry on 14.06.2024. However, the appeal could not be refilled within 7 days during the personal difficulty of the Counsel. 3. A delay of 104 days thus accrued in the refiling of the captioned appeal." 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.11.2024, it was vehemently contended by Shri Shaunak Mitra, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent- Resolution Professional that no worthwhile and satisfactory explanation has been given by the Applicant to explain the delay in refiling. Reply was filed by the Respondent to the Refiling Delay Condonation Application of the Applicant. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent opposing the submissions of the Applicant has made the following pleading in paragraph 5 of their reply as under: "5. The appellant has not given any cogent explanation as to why there was an inordinate delay of 104 days in refiling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed to be accorded to the Appellant. Accordingly, all resolutions which have been put to voting since the inception of the COC ought to have been set aside or alternatively, put to revoting. 8. I state that however, the RP despite being aware of the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT, acted contrary to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The RP declined the request of the Appellant for putting to vote the earlier resolutions that were passed contrary to the submissions and recordings before the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and stated that he would take a legal opinion on the subject. 9. I state that such actions of the RP were/are not only biased but also coupled with malice. The RP who has to act neutrally and in accordance with law, acted as per his own whims and fancies. 10. I state that the Appellant was taking legal advice as to whether it should actually press the captioned appeal and take requisite steps for the listing of the appeal or not. However, the RP continued to act in a constant bias against the Appellant and an order was passed on 24.09.2024, whereby the Appellant was directed to pay the interim finance according to its votin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the Applicant was based in Germany. It has also been pleaded that the Applicant was being unjustly treated by the RP which had declined their request for putting to re-vote the earlier resolutions passed in the first three CoC meetings and that the Adjudicating Authority had also erroneously affirmed this decision which led to the filing of the present Appeal. In the meantime, the RP had passed another order on 24.09.2024 directing the Applicant to pay interim finance according to their voting share which order caused grave prejudice to the Appellant. The delay in refiling the appeal was because the Appellant was taking legal advice as to whether it should challenge the order of the RP dated 24.09.2024 or pursue the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 30.04.2024. Further, it was submitted that the Counsel was in a personal difficulty as she did not receive necessary instructions from the client in a timely manner to refile the appeal which caused delay in taking requisite steps for listing of the appeal against the impugned order dated 30.04.2024. Submission was pressed that the above cited reasons show that the delay was triggered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with due diligence and dispatch. From the submissions and pleadings made by the Appellant, three grounds have been cited for the delay. The first ground raised has been the ill-health of the authorised representative. This has been contested by the Respondents on the grounds that the ill-health of one representative of the company cannot be a justified reason for having stalled the refiling of the appeal for 321 days and that the company could have authorised any other representative to undertake the re-filing of the Appeals. We also note that apart from a general statement, no proof of illness has been placed on record. Furthermore, there is substance in the argument raised by the Respondents that the Company could always have deputed another authorised representative to complete the task of refiling if it was serious. That the Appellant has admitted that they were pursuing another parallel litigation in another court during this period also shows that the grounds raised for inaction in the present refiling is only a pretence. In the face of such gross inaction on the part of the Appellant company, we are not convinced of this ground to be a good enough for condonation of delay." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
