2021 (9) TMI 986 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal Dismissed: MOU Impact, Time Barred, Legal Principles Upheld

Gay Printers Versus Ramesh Kumar Suneja

Gay Printers Versus Ramesh Kumar Suneja - TMI Issues Involved:- Appeal against the order dismissing the Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.- Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.Analysis:1. Appeal Against Order under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C:The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an Application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor, alleging a forged MOU. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, stating that the MOU did not form the basis of adjudication. The Appellant contended that the MOU was fabricated to evade legal debt. The Adjudicating Authority held that no inquiry was required under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The Appellant appealed, arguing that the MOU was crucial. The Respondent claimed the Appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal found the MOU did not influence the decision, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision.2. Application for Condonation of Delay:The Appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, citing an extension of limitation by the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the extension did not apply to the Appellant's case, as the limitation had expired before the extended period. The Tribunal dismissed the condonation request, as the Appeal was time-barred by 299 days. Despite hearing arguments on merits, the Tribunal found no flaw in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and dismissed the Appeal both on grounds of limitation and merits.Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal against the order under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, as the MOU did not affect the adjudication. The condonation of delay was denied due to the Appeal being time-barred. The decision was based on legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's ruling.