Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing

The Tribunal dismissed the Delay Condonation Application, upholding the decision to reject the Appeal due to the Appellant's failure to file within the prescribed time frame, despite citing delay in receiving the certified copy as the reason. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of due diligence in promptly applying for a certified copy after the order pronouncement to meet the limitation requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Appellant's argument regarding the delay being only 9 days was rejected, as the delay exceeded 15 days beyond the prescribed period. Ultimately, the Memo of Appeal was rejected, and the Appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Delay Condonation Application under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal against the order dated 06.05.2022. The Appellant claimed that the delay was due to the delay in receiving the certified copy of the order.

2. The Appellant applied for the certified copy on 15.06.2022, after the expiry of the 30-day limitation period. The Respondent argued that the Appellant did not show due diligence in filing the Appeal within the prescribed time frame.

3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of the time required to obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to apply for the certified copy within the limitation period.

4. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that a litigant must exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy promptly after the pronouncement of the order to meet the limitation requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

5. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant's delay in filing the Appeal beyond the 45-day limit could not be condoned. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's argument that the delay was only 9 days, as the delay exceeded 15 days beyond the prescribed period.

6. The Appellant's reliance on a previous judgment where an order was declared void ab-initio due to procedural irregularities was deemed irrelevant in the present case, where the order was pronounced in open court.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Delay Condonation Application, stating that there were no valid grounds to allow the application. As a result, the Memo of Appeal was rejected, upholding the decision to dismiss the Appeal due to the delay in filing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision to dismiss the Delay Condonation Application and reject the Appeal.

---