9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technical ) ] This is an Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Act) against the Order dated 24th January, 2024 (Impugned Order) of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Adjudicating Authority) in Company Petition (CP) (IB) (MB) No.80 of 2020. 2. Before the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2349 of 2024 is taken up, prayer for condonation of delay of 244 days, as filed in I.A. No. 8804 of 2024 is being addressed. Initially, the Appellant had filed I.A. No. 8804 of 2024 for the delay in condonation. Later on, Additional Affidavit in support of the condonation of delay has been filed on 18.03.2025 in the same I.A. No. 8804 of 2024. 3. Learned Counsels for both sides were heard an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of 10 days from 13.02.2024 till 22.02.2024. Owing to his old age and health issues, he was not keeping well and therefore could not follow up with his Advocate on Record. The Advocate on Record could comply with all the defects raised by the department after 244 days in re-filing of the above appeal. He claims that the delay occurred solely due to consumption of time in clearing of the objections by the concerned department of this Tribunal and compliance of the same on the part of the advocate on the record. Further, the same also occurred as the Appellant herein was not able to follow up with the office of his advocate due to his old age, ailments and constant health issues. The Appellant states that the delay of 244 days was ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Advocate on record is based in Mumbai and predominantly practices at Courts in Mumbai, including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. This is the first matter of the Advocate on record before the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The Advocate on record at the relevant time though diligent was not so familiar with the practice and procedure at NCLAT and hence took some time to familiarize himself with the procedure and practice at NCLAT. 38.3. It is submitted that the Advocate on record acted bonafide and on most occasions has removed/cured the defects immediately and/or within a reasonable time. It is only on few occasions the time was taken for various reasons not attributable to the Advocate on record. 38.4. Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself with the procedure and practice at NCLAT. It is also pointed out by the Respondent that despite repeated some defects being pointed by the Registry, they were not being cured and they were notified again and again by the registry. This shows that the Appellant was not diligent in curing the defects. And in case he was not able to cure the defects he could have mentioned it before this Tribunal to take up the appeal with defects, which was not done in this case. 10. The Appeal being filed on 22.02.2024 through e-filing, which was within the 30 days from the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, was filed within limitation period and there is no delay in filing of the Appeal. However, it is to be noted that the defects have to be cured w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
