TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>NCLAT Chennai rejects delay condonation applications for contradictory limitation claims and false averments</h1> <h3>Mr. A Rajendra, Ex-Shareholder & Suspended Board of Director of Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Mr. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao, RP of Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. & 4 Ors.</h3> NCLAT Chennai dismissed condonation of delay applications for two appeals filed 10 days beyond limitation. The Appellant made false averments claiming ... Condonation of delay of 10 days, in filing of the present appeals - sufficient reasons for delay or not - Seeking a direction to the Respondent therein to place the resolution plan submitted by the him before the CoC for consideration alongwith other resolution plans - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts are that both the appeals have been filed against the order dated 20.07.2023. The first appeal has been filed when the application filed by the Appellant for seeking direction to the Respondent therein to place the resolution plan submitted by the Applicant before the CoC for its consideration alongwith other resolution plans and further to stay the voting results of the resolution plan, which is put for voting pending disposal of the application filed by the Applicant has been dismissed and the second appeal has been filed by the Appellant because the application filed by the RP of the Corporate Debtor for approval of the resolution plan submitted by SRA was approved. Both the appeals have been filed on 28.08.2023. The first Appeal has been filed with the free certified copy made available on 01.08.2023 whereas the second appeal has been filed with a copy of order which is alleged to have been shared by the RP on 07.08.2023. Three issues emerges in this case, firstly, the Appellant is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi who has made a totally wrong averments in para 6 and 17 of the grounds of appeal which has been declared and verified to be correct and also filed an affidavit in support of it because, firstly, the appeal is not within the limitation though a declaration is made in para 6 of the grounds of appeal that the Appeal is within the period specified in Section 61 of the Code and secondly the Appellant has obtained the certified copy (paid copy) applying the same for it on 01.08.2023 and received the same on 10.08.2023, therefore, the period of 10 days deserves to be excluded in terms of the Section 12 of the Act, 1963. Secondly, the Appellant has not even applied for the certified copy (paid copy) at all in filing of the appeals and even one application has been filed i.e. I.A. No. 1118 of 2023 for dispensing with the filing of the certified copy. Thirdly, the Appellant has taken totally a new stand in the application for condonation of delay when an objection was raised by the Respondents that the appeal is not within the period of limitation. In the application filed for condonation of delay, the ground taken is that the limitation is to be counted from the date when free certified copy was made available in so far as the first appeal is concerned whereas no such plea has been taken in so far as the second appeal is concerned in which the averment has been made that the appeal has been filed with the copy given by the RP and lastly even if there is a delay of 10 days for which the application has been filed for condonation of delay, no ground has been made out for the purpose of condoning the delay which would fall within the parameters of sufficient cause. There are no merit in the present applications and the same are hereby dismissed. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
