9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 for condonation of 104 days delay in refiling the appeal. 2. The condonation of refiling delay Application was filed in the Appeal filed against the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in IA 4383/ND/2021 in CP (IB) No. 2039/ND/2019 before NCLT, New Delhi, Bench V under Section 61(1) of the Code. It is claimed by the Appellant that: "3... It is further stated that the present Appeal was filed well within the time frame prescribed under section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. It is respectfully submitted that there has been a delay of 104 days in refiling the captioned Appeal. The counsel handling the matter, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Khurana, was unable to file the Appeal as her father fell seriously ill in September and, unfortunately, suffered a brain stroke on 29.09.2024, resulting in paralysis. Due to these circumstances, she was unable to attend to the refiling in a timely manner. 5. Additionally, the Appeal is a substantial document, and the process of gathering all necessary documents and addressing the defects pointed out by the Registry took considerable time. Moreover, a technical issue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC OnLine NCLAT 3516 (5 Member's Bench) There is no quarrel to the argument that this Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in refiling the appeal, but as per statutory limitations as discussed in subsequent paragraphs. So, reliance on these judgments is not being questioned subject to statutory limitations. 6. The Appellant has also cited various judgments which established the precedent for condoning delay in refiling appeals when sufficient cause has been established. These judgments cited are: People's All India Anti-Corruption and Crime Prevention Society (IP) in Competition App. (AT) No. 46 of 2022 & IA No.3685 of 2022, Maharashtra State Power Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Shree Diddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1133 of 2023 & IA No.3946, 3893 of 2023, Tecpro Systems Ltd. Vs. NTPC Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1343 of 2023, Armour Security (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ambience Pvt. Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1270 of 2023 & IA No.4373 of 2023, Vipan Mittal Vs. Nipan Bansal, Resolution Professional of KSM Spinning Mills Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1350 of 2023 & IA No.4743, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in subsequent paragraphs. 10. The Respondent relies upon judgement of this Appellate Tribunal dated 06.12.2024 in Govardhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v. Vaibhav Khandelwal and Anr., Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) 1524 of 2024 wherein it was categorically observed that the delay in refiling can be condoned only if the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that there was reasonable and justifiable cause for not refiling the appeal on time. Moreover, the question of condoning any delay in refiling would have to be seen in the context of the explanation offered to find out whether the reasons cited were beyond the control of the Appellant and all efforts were made to overcome the delay with due diligence and utmost despatch. The relevant extract of this Judgment is reproduced herein below as follows: "8. At the outset, we would like to point out that it is well recognised that while dealing with refiling delay condonation applications, a liberal approach is expected to be normally taken and as long as sufficient cause is shown, such delays in refiling are to be condoned. Be that as it may, it also goes without saying that the delay in refiling can be condoned only if the Tribunal is satisfied that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant the luxury of 205 days delay in refiling in IBC proceedings. " 13. Furthermore, in accordance with National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, the Appellant should have cured the defects within a period of 7 days i.e., on or before 11.07.2024 from the date of notification of defects by the Registry. The relevant extract of the 2016 rules is reproduced herein below: "26. Endorsement and scrutiny of petition or appeal or document (2) If, on scrutiny, the appeal or document is found to be defective, such document shall, after notice to the party, be returned for compliance and if there is a failure to comply within seven days from the date of return, the same shall be placed before the Registrar who may pass appropriate orders. (3) The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party concerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary or extend the time for compliance. (4) Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
