2021 (4) TMI 1123 - AT - IBC

Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Strict 45-Day Limit for Filing, Rejecting Delay Beyond Statutory Allowance.

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization Versus Laxman Digambar Pawar (Liquidator of M/s. Infinity Fab Engineering Company Private Limited)

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization Versus Laxman Digambar Pawar (Liquidator of M/s. Infinity Fab ... Issues Involved:1. Non-party status and lack of notification to the Applicant/Appellant.2. Delay in filing the appeal due to lack of information and nationwide lockdown.3. Applicability of Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods.4. Jurisdictional transfer and its impact on filing the appeal.5. Compliance with NCLT Rules regarding the provision of certified copies of orders.6. Legal precedents on condonation of delay beyond statutory limits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-party status and lack of notification to the Applicant/Appellant:The Applicant/Appellant contended that they were not a party to the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and were not informed about the impugned order dated 22.11.2019. They claimed they were unaware of the ongoing status of the case until May 2020, when they discovered the order on the Adjudicating Authority's online portal.2. Delay in filing the appeal due to lack of information and nationwide lockdown:The Applicant/Appellant argued that they could not collect relevant information and documents due to the worsening situation in Tamil Nadu and the nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government of India from 24.03.2020. Consequently, they could not instruct their counsel to draft the appeal in a timely manner.3. Applicability of Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods:The Applicant/Appellant cited the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil 3 of 2020) dated 23.03.2020, which extended the limitation periods under both General and Special Laws from 15.03.2020 till further orders. They contended that their appeal was filed within the permitted time from the date of knowledge and receipt of the impugned order.4. Jurisdictional transfer and its impact on filing the appeal:The Applicant/Appellant stated that after collecting the impugned order, the appeal papers were sent to Delhi. However, before filing the appeal, they were informed that the jurisdiction had been transferred to NCLAT, Chennai Bench, necessitating the filing of the appeal in Chennai.5. Compliance with NCLT Rules regarding the provision of certified copies of orders:The Applicant/Appellant claimed that the certified copy of the impugned order was not served to them by the Registry of the Tribunal as per Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The Tribunal clarified that since the Applicant/Appellant was not a party to the proceedings, the question of sending the certified copy did not arise.6. Legal precedents on condonation of delay beyond statutory limits:The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents, including the decision in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v Kirusa Software Private Limited, which stipulated that an appeal could be filed within 30 days of the order with an extension of 15 days, and no more. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v Glaxo Smith Kline Health Care Limited, emphasizing that statutory limitations must be strictly adhered to and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the Applicant/Appellant was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the statutory limit of 45 days from the date of knowledge of the order. The delay of 15 days beyond the 30-day period could not be condoned. Consequently, IA No. 72 of 2021 in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 31 of 2021 was dismissed, and the main appeal, Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 31 of 2021, was also rejected. IA No. 71/2021 and IA No. 73/2021 were closed.