NCLAT Chennai rejects delay condonation applications for contradictory limitation claims and false averments

NCLAT Chennai dismissed condonation of delay applications for two appeals filed 10 days beyond limitation. The Appellant made false averments claiming appeals were within limitation period while simultaneously seeking condonation of delay. The Appellant failed to apply for certified copies and took contradictory positions regarding limitation calculation. First appeal used free certified copy available on 01.08.2023, second appeal relied on RP's copy dated 07.08.2023. NCLAT found no sufficient cause established for the 10-day delay and noted the Appellant's suppressio veri and suggestio falsi in making incorrect statements under verification. Both applications dismissed for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay.
2. Declaration of appeal within the period specified in Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Filing of certified copy of the order.

Summary:

Application for Condonation of Delay:
The Appellant filed I.A. No. 1315 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1316 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeals. The Respondents contested these applications. The Appellant argued that the delay was due to obtaining a free certified copy of the order, which was made ready on 01.08.2023. The Appellant contended that the limitation period should start from the date of receipt of the certified copy. However, the Respondents argued that the Appellant did not apply for a certified copy and made false declarations in the appeal.

Declaration of Appeal Within the Period Specified in Section 61 of the Code:
The Appellant declared in the grounds of appeal that the appeals were within the period specified in Section 61 of the Code. However, it was later revealed that the Appellant did not apply for a certified copy and made false declarations in the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appeals were not filed within the 30-day period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.

Filing of Certified Copy of the Order:
The Appellant did not apply for a certified copy of the order and instead filed the appeals with a free certified copy and a copy shared by the Resolution Professional (RP). The Tribunal emphasized that filing a certified copy is mandatory under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Appellant's failure to comply with this requirement and making false declarations led to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay due to the Appellant's false declarations and failure to apply for a certified copy. Consequently, the appeals were not found to be duly constituted and were dismissed.

---