High Court allows withdrawal of Writ Petition under Insolvency Code but Appellate Tribunal denies appeal due to delay

The High Court granted leave for withdrawal of a Writ Petition filed by the Partner of a Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, allowing the filing of an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. However, the appeal was filed after the prescribed period under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code, and the Appellate Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to the delay. The conflict between Section 61(2) of the I&B Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act was addressed, with the Tribunal ruling that the I&B Code prevails, rendering the appeal filed beyond the timeframe not maintainable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 admitted by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Appeal filed after the prescribed period under Section 61 of the I&B Code.
3. Request to extend the prescribed period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. Conflict between Section 61(2) of the I&B Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the Financial Creditor moved against the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Application, leading to the Partner of the Corporate Debtor filing a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The High Court granted the leave, allowing the withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file an appeal, without expressing any opinion on the contentions raised.

2. The Appeal was filed after the prescribed period under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code, which mandates filing within thirty days with a provision for extension up to fifteen days if sufficient cause is shown. However, the Appeal was filed after 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order. The Appellate Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal due to the delay beyond the statutory limit.

3. The Appellant sought to extend the prescribed period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the admission of an Appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The Appellate Tribunal considered this request in light of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for the Appellant to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Appeal.

4. The judgment delves into the conflict between Section 61(2) of the I&B Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 238 of the I&B Code asserts the Code's supremacy over other laws, leading the Appellate Tribunal to hold that Section 61(2) of the I&B Code prevails over Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Appeal filed beyond the stipulated period was deemed not maintainable, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in legal proceedings.

---