2023 (12) TMI 1245 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

NCLAT rejects appeal delay condonation citing insufficient reasons and National Spot Exchange precedent on 15-day limit

Anneel Saraogi Versus Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata And Anneel Saraogi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Custom & Anr.

NCLAT dismissed appellant's application for condonation of 15-day delay in filing appeal. The tribunal found appellant's reasons insufficient, noting the ... Seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal - existence of sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal has been filed on the last date i.e. 15th day i.e. 45th day. The reason given in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay appears to be a halfhearted attempt on the part of the Appellant for condonation the delay of 15 days because it is mentioned therein that the appellant took time for procuring relevant documents and as such the counsel for the Appellant could not receive instructions on time. However, in the additional affidavit, the Appellant has mentioned that it had to obtain several documents which could not be procured in time. However, it is not denied that the appeal was filed on 17.04.2023 and then an application was filed on 08.11.2023 for placing on record the additional documents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] held that the delay beyond the period of 15 days cannot be condoned by the Tribunal and even under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which makes the provision very stringent and lays responsibility on the Appellant to be vigilant enough to file the appeal within the prescribed period. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there are no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed - The application for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed. Condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and for condonation of delay of 162 in refiling the appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal has been filed on the last date i.e. 15th day i.e. 45th day. The reason given in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay appears to be a halfhearted attempt on the part of the Appellant for condonation the delay of 15 days because it is mentioned therein that the appellant took time for procuring relevant documents and as such the counsel for the Appellant could not receive instructions on time - the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli, [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] held that the delay beyond the period of 15 days cannot be condoned by the Tribunal and even under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which makes the provision very stringent and lays responsibility on the Appellant to be vigilant enough to file the appeal within the prescribed period - there are no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.Summary:Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appealThe appellant sought condonation of a 15-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to time spent in procuring relevant documents and the counsel not receiving instructions on time. The tribunal found this reason insufficient, noting that the appellant's additional affidavit also failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The tribunal emphasized that the explanation should be a 'sufficient cause' and not merely an excuse. It referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli, which held that delays beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned, reinforcing that the appellant must be vigilant in filing within the prescribed time. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.Issue 2: Condonation of delay in refiling the appealThe appellant also sought condonation of a 162-day delay in refiling the appeal, again citing difficulties in procuring necessary documents. However, since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed, the appeal itself was deemed not maintainable. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay in refiling became infructuous and was dismissed as well.Conclusion:Both applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal were dismissed due to insufficient reasons provided by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was not found to be duly constituted and was dismissed.