2023 (11) TMI 829 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Enforces Strict Timelines, Rejects Health-Based Delay Justification for Insolvency Case.

The Tribunal dismissed the Corporate Debtor's appeal due to the failure to file within the prescribed time limit under Section 61 of the Insolvency and ... Condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the present appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - Section 61(1), (2) and proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code - HELD THAT:- The above provisions have four parts (1) any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority shall have a right of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (2) time prescribed for filing such an appeal is 30 days (3) the period of 30 days is further extended to another 15 days but with a rider that the Applicant has to assign a sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority, for not filing the appeal within the period of 30 days and (4) the period of 15 days cannot further be extended. In the case of NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED VERSUS MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR DUNAR FOODS LIMITED [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 15 days. Since, the Code is complete in itself and there are various timelines provided for the completion of CIRP and also Liquidation Process, therefore, the legislature has also prescribed the period of only 30 days in Section 61(2) of the code to file an appeal in terms of Section 61(1). The Legislature did not provide jurisdiction to the Tribunal to extend the period to any extent by condoning the delay of any period in terms of Section 5 of the Act, 1963, in case it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause with the Appellant for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed rather in proviso to Section 61(2) a period of only 15 days is provided, enabling the Appellant to file the appeal within that period by making out a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed 30 days and sufficient cause has to be to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority. It is required to find out whether the reason given by the Appellant for filing the appeal i.e on 45th day, knowing fully well that if the appeal is filed on 46th days then there would be no chance of even getting an order for condonation of delay, has given a reason that the Appeal has been filed belatedly on account of non-availability of the Applicant for the signing purpose as he was stated to be suffering from health-related issues - here the Appellant has been totally casual not only in filing the appeal but also filing the application for condonation of delay, may be because the appeal filed within the period of 15th day is also considered a matter of right. There are no other alternative but to hold that the reason given in the application for seeking condonation of delay is not a sufficient reason as it was not beyond the control of the Appellant because this Court is not satisfied with it that the signatory authority could not even sign the appeal within the period of 30 days and in the extended period of 15 days as well - the present application is found to be totally bereft of reason and denuded of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Appeal by Corporate Debtor:The Corporate Debtor filed an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting an operational debt of Rs. 9,32,17,794.35 and imposing moratorium. The appeal was filed belatedly, and an application for condonation of delay of 15 days was submitted citing health-related issues as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of condoning the delay before hearing the appeal on merit.Condonation of Delay Application:The application for condonation of delay was filed under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Appellant admitted to filing the appeal after the prescribed 30 days due to the signing authority's health-related issues, specifically mentioning fever. However, the Tribunal found the reason to be unsubstantiated as no evidence was provided to support the claim of the signing authority's incapacity to sign the appeal within the extended period of 15 days.Legal Analysis:The Tribunal referred to Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the time limit for filing an appeal and the provision for condonation of delay for up to 15 days. Citing a Supreme Court case, it noted that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the specified 15 days. The legislative intent behind the strict timelines for appeals was highlighted, indicating that the Tribunal cannot extend the filing period beyond what is prescribed in the Code.Decision:The Tribunal concluded that the reason provided by the Appellant for the delayed filing of the appeal was insufficient and lacked credibility. It dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the appeal was not duly constituted. The appeal by the Corporate Debtor was also dismissed in line with the rejection of the condonation of delay application.This comprehensive summary covers the issues, details of the judgment, legal analysis, and the final decision rendered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench.