TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Condonation rejected for 125-day delay in IBC claim filing under Form-C, 'seeking legal advice' insufficient cause</h1> <h3>Shyam Rathod Versus Gopalsamy Ganesh Babu</h3> NCLAT Chennai dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of condonation application for 49-day delay in filing claim under Form-C. The actual delay was 125 ... Rejection of application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form - C together with the delay in filing the Application before the Adjudicating Authority - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The actual time period of delay in submitting the 'Claim Form' is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the 'Appellant' approached the 'Adjudicating Authority', vide I.A.1589/22 with a further delay of 100 days, and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking 'legal advise', which the 'Adjudicating Authority' has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a 'sufficient cause for the delay'. The Appellant placed reliance on PUNEET KAUR VERSUS KV DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MR. PANKAJ NARANG, COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS, CONSORTIUM OF SUMIT KUMAR KHANNA AND M/S. BRIJ KISHORE TRADING PVT. LTD. [2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI], in support of his case that the NCLAT Principal Bench condoned the delay of the Homebuyers in filing their Claims. The facts in that matter are distinguishable as the case relates to Homebuyers where there were Builder Buyer Agreements ('BBA') and it was held that rightfully some provisions in the Plan/submission of Claims are to be made for the genuine Homebuyers. The fact of the matter is that the Appellant has given no substantial grounds to condone the delay. IBC is a time bound process, which has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgements and at the cost of repetition, the explanation given by the Appellant herein is neither substantial nor can be construed as a sufficient cause. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:The main issue in this Appeal is whether the 'Adjudicating Authority' was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the 'Claim' together with the delay in filing the Application before the 'Adjudicating Authority'.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing ClaimThe Appellant filed an Appeal against the Impugned Order dismissing the Application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the Claim under Form - C. The Adjudicating Authority noted the lack of proper grounds for the delay and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in 'Esha Bhattacharjee' to dismiss the Application, emphasizing that Condonation of Delay cannot be granted as a matter of course.Issue 2: Classification of Claim as Financial DebtThe Appellant argued that the Claim should be recognized as a 'Financial Debt' due to an unsecured loan against the payment of interest, falling within the ambit of Financial Debt. It was contended that the delay in filing the Claim was not willful, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in not considering the legal arguments presented. The Appellant highlighted the distinction between inordinate delay and a short duration of delay, urging the Authority to exercise its inherent powers to condone the delay.Issue 3: Relevance of Previous JudgmentsThe Appellant cited judgments such as 'Puneet Kaur' and 'Punjab National Bank' to support the argument that belated Claims could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Respondent contended that the decisions relied upon were not relevant to the present case, and the Adjudicating Authority was correct in relying on 'Esha Bhattacharjee' to dismiss the Application.Assessment:The Adjudicating Authority found that the Appellant's reasons for the delay, including seeking legal advice and a change in family relationships, were not sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were to be strictly adhered to, and the delay in submitting the Claim Form was deemed to be 125 days, not 49 days as claimed by the Appellant. The lack of substantial grounds for condonation of delay led to the dismissal of the Appeal.Conclusion:The Appeal was dismissed as the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the Condonation of Delay was upheld. The Appellant's explanations for the delay were deemed insufficient, and the timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were held to be crucial. The Appeal failed, with no costs imposed, and any connected pending Interlocutory Applications were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
