Dismissed appeal for delay in filing resolution plan challenge stresses importance of timely action

The appeal seeking condonation of a delay in filing against the order approving the resolution plan was dismissed by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench. The appellant's claim of a 102-day delay was contradicted by the respondent, who argued for a delay of over 356 days. The tribunal found that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order since August 17, 2020, but filed the appeal on August 3, 2021, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely action and awareness of legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Approval of resolution plan, Condonation of delay, Knowledge of impugned order

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal seeking condonation of a 102-day delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant claimed to have been aggrieved by the order approving the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor under specific sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that they were not a party to the original proceedings before the NCLT, Kolkata, and only became aware of the impugned order and resolution plan after a significant delay. However, the respondent contended that the appeal was actually delayed by more than 356 days, contrary to the appellant's claim of only 102 days.

Approval of Resolution Plan:
The resolution plan submitted by M/s Sponge Sales (India) Private Limited was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% vote and subsequently by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench. The respondent argued that the appellant was aware of the approval of the resolution plan and the related proceedings, as evidenced by various communications and documents sent by the Resolution Professional to the appellant. The respondent highlighted that the appellant had received the approval order and payment intimation via emails, and even a single window application for approvals was filed by the respondent. The respondent claimed that the appellant failed to challenge the impugned order promptly and only filed the appeal at a belated stage.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as the time taken for sending documents to various authorities and the Law Department for comments. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be heard on its merits. However, the respondent contended that the appellant deliberately suppressed facts and misled the tribunal, indicating a lack of merit in the appeal and no grounds for condonation of delay.

Knowledge of Impugned Order:
The tribunal found that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order approving the resolution plan since August 17, 2020, based on communications from the Resolution Professional. The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed on August 3, 2021, without a sufficient explanation for the delay. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the delay in filing and lack of sufficient grounds for condonation. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely action and knowledge of legal proceedings to maintain the integrity of the appeal process.

---