NCLAT rejects appeal filed 67 days late, denies condonation under Section 61 IBC citing no sufficient cause

NCLAT dismissed an appeal filed 67 days after the order date, rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appellant argued they did not receive a free copy of the order, but the tribunal held that IBC contains no provision for serving free copies. Even counting limitation from when the certified copy was obtained, the appeal exceeded the maximum permissible period of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days condonable delay under Section 61 of IBC). The tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay and rejected both the condonation application and the time-barred appeal.

---

---

Issues:
- Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, claiming to be the Director and Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, filed an appeal for Condonation of Delay as the Impugned Order was passed ex-parte. The Appellant argued that he only became aware of the order on 25th June, 2019, after returning from a trip. The delay in filing the appeal was stated to be only four days from the date of knowledge.

2. Respondent No. 1 opposed the Application to condone the delay, stating that the Appellant had been regularly filing returns and the claim of lack of knowledge until 25th June, 2019 was disputed. The Respondent argued that efforts were made to serve the Appellant, making the appeal time-barred.

3. The IRP provided evidence of communication attempts to serve the Appellant, including sending letters and emails, visiting the official address, and sending messengers. The IRP's efforts contradicted the Appellant's claim of lack of knowledge until 25th June, 2019, suggesting the Appellant's statement was for convenience.

4. The Tribunal found the IRP's documented efforts convincing, indicating that the Appellant had received communication in early June 2019. Considering the timeline of events, the delay in filing the appeal exceeded the permissible limit under Section 61 of IBC, which allows a 30-day period for filing an appeal with a possible condonation of up to 15 days.

5. The Tribunal emphasized that the argument of not receiving a free copy of the order was irrelevant under IBC provisions. Referring to a relevant judgment, the Tribunal stated that relying on the supply of a free copy was not a valid reason for delay. The appeal was deemed time-barred and rejected, as it was not filed within the statutory period of 30 days plus the permissible 15-day extension.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Application to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, in accordance with the provisions of Section 61 of IBC. The decision was based on the documented communication efforts by the IRP and the failure of the Appellant to file the appeal within the statutory timeline.

---