Appeal Dismissed for Operational Creditor Due to Delay and Pre-existing Dispute

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by an Operational Creditor against the rejection of their application under Section 9 of the I & B Code. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned as the Tribunal found no valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal also noted the existence of a dispute between the parties prior to the demand notice issued under Section 8 of the I & B Code, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

---

---

Issues: Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against rejection of application under Section 9 of the I & B Code due to delay and existence of dispute.

The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the appellant, an Operational Creditor, challenged the rejection of their application under Section 9 of the I & B Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant filed for condonation of a 15-day delay in preferring the appeal. The respondent argued that the delay exceeded 15 days and should not be condoned without appropriate grounds. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appellant received the impugned order on 15th November 2017 and was required to file the appeal by 15th December 2017, but the appeal was filed on 2nd January 2018. The appellant claimed that the Tribunal was closed during the Winter Vacation, but the Registry was open until 28th December 2017. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found no valid reason to condone the delay.

Regarding the 'existence of dispute,' it was observed that a dispute was already pending before the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the I & B Code. The Adjudicating Authority highlighted communication between the corporate debtor and the petitioner indicating an ongoing dispute related to costs incurred due to delays in replacing pipe conveyor belts. Based on this 'existence of dispute,' the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order. Additionally, due to the lack of merit in the appeal, it was dismissed without costs.

---