Tribunal grants appeal, allows claim delay due to pandemic, emphasizes compliance with legal timelines

The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, condoning the delay in filing the Claim due to exceptional circumstances like the pandemic. The Appellant was directed to submit the Claim to the Liquidator within a week for assessment, with a reminder that no observations were made on the Claim's merits. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with legal timelines and consideration of extraordinary situations, setting aside the initial order and providing specific guidance for future steps.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order dismissing the Appeal against the decision of the Liquidator.
2. Delay in filing the claim by the Appellant.
3. Appellant's submissions regarding the delay.
4. Respondent's arguments against condoning the delay.
5. Legal provisions and judgments cited by both parties.
6. Tribunal's assessment and decision to allow the Appeal.

Issue 1: Challenge to the impugned order
The Company Appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Appellant against the decision of the Liquidator rejecting the Claim due to a delay in filing. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Appeal was filed beyond the time provided by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue 2: Delay in filing the claim
The Appellant filed the Claim after the specified last date, citing reasons such as the pandemic situation, inability to contact counsel, and lack of knowledge about the Liquidation Proceedings. The Liquidator rejected the Claim due to the delay in submission.

Issue 3: Appellant's submissions regarding the delay
The Appellant contended that they were unaware of the Liquidation Proceedings, faced difficulties due to the pandemic, and relied on Supreme Court orders regarding limitation periods during the specified period. The Appellant argued that they had shown sufficient cause for the delay.

Issue 4: Respondent's arguments against condoning the delay
The Respondent argued that the Appellant, being related to a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, had knowledge of the ongoing proceedings and deliberately delayed filing the Claim. The Respondent emphasized the fixed timelines under the Code and cited legal provisions and judgments to support their stance.

Issue 5: Legal provisions and judgments cited by both parties
Both parties cited relevant legal provisions such as Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and judgments like Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd to support their arguments regarding the delay in filing the Claim and the applicability of the Supreme Court's orders on limitation periods.

Issue 6: Tribunal's assessment and decision
The Tribunal acknowledged the pandemic situation and the Supreme Court's directions on limitation periods. Considering the circumstances and the reasons provided by the Appellant, the Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the Claim. The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, directing the Appellant to file the Claim before the Liquidator within a week for further assessment, emphasizing that no observations were made on the merits of the Claim.

In a similar case (CA(AT)(Ins) No.46/2022), the Tribunal also allowed the Appeal, granting the Appellant an opportunity to file the Claim before the Liquidator within a week for a decision on Admission/Rejection, in line with the law.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and provided detailed directions for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal timelines and the need to consider exceptional circumstances such as the pandemic.

---