Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with order; costs upheld, no grounds for interference.

The appeal regarding compliance with an order by the National Company Law Tribunal was dismissed. The Corporate Debtor failed to file a reply affidavit within the specified time frame despite extensions, citing reasons such as the pandemic and professional negligence. The Tribunal affirmed the Impugned Order, noting the delay in filing the appeal and lack of grounds for interference. The Appellant's request to set aside imposed costs and reopen the right to file a reply affidavit was rejected. The decision highlighted non-compliance with orders, delay in seeking remedy, and lack of justification for overturning the initial order.

---

---

Issues:

1. Compliance with the order dated 16th February, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor.
3. Failure to file a reply affidavit within the specified time frame.
4. Imposition of costs for non-compliance with orders.
5. Engagement of new counsel and subsequent filing of a fresh Vakalatnama.
6. Request for setting aside the imposed cost and reopening the right to file a reply affidavit.
7. Allegations of professional negligence against the earlier counsel.
8. Delay in pursuing the remedy before the Adjudicating Authority.
9. Decision on the appeal and affirmation of the Impugned Order.

Analysis:

The instant appeal involved the compliance with an order dated 16th February, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. The Financial Creditor had filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor, claiming an overdue amount. Despite multiple opportunities and extensions granted by the Tribunal, the Corporate Debtor failed to file a reply affidavit within the stipulated time frame, citing reasons such as the COVID-19 pandemic and professional negligence of the earlier counsel. The new counsel was engaged, and a fresh Vakalatnama was filed, seeking to set aside the imposed costs and reopen the right to file a reply affidavit.

The Tribunal noted the lack of seriousness on the part of the Appellant in pursuing the remedy before the Adjudicating Authority, as evidenced by the delayed filing of the appeal after the fixed date. After considering the submissions and the records, the Tribunal affirmed the Impugned Order and dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the decision. The Registry was directed to upload the judgment on the Appellate Tribunal's website and send a copy to the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench. The decision was based on the failure to comply with orders, the delay in pursuing the remedy, and the lack of grounds to overturn the Impugned Order.

---