2024 (3) TMI 410 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal Dismissed: NCLAT Upholds Strict Adherence to Appeal Timelines in Insolvency Cases, Condonation Request Denied.

The NCLAT dismissed the Appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the NCLT order in CP(IB) No. 56 of 2023. The appeal ... Prayer for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal - Dismissal of section 9 application - HELD THAT:- The order clearly mentions both the date i.e. date of hearing i.e. 21st September, 2023 and date of pronouncement i.e. 25th September, 2023. Order also indicates that counsel for the operational creditor i.e. Appellant was present and the order was pronounced in the presence of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan [2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT], the period for filing the Appeal shall commence from the date when order is pronounced in presence of Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the submission of the Appellant relying on Judgment of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate [2023 (12) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT] in paragraph 20 is to be considered - Paragraph 20 as quoted were in reference of the facts of the case of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, where although order was pronounced subsequently but earlier date was put in the order. The present is a case where both the date of hearing and date of pronouncement has been clearly mentioned in the order hence the observation of para 20 in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate has no relevance in the presence case. The Appeal have been filed beyond 15 days after expiry of the limitation, we are unable to condone the delay since our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days only as per Section 61(2) proviso of the Code. Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. Issues involved:The issues involved in this judgment include an application for delay in filing an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court-II, Kolkata in CP(IB) No. 56 of 2023, where the Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed.Delay in filing the Appeal:The application (I.A. No. 872 of 2024) sought a delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 25th September, 2023. The Appellant claimed to have received the copy of the order on 09th October, 2023, which was sent by the Registry. The Appellant referenced judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7467 and 7468 of 2023 and V. Nagarajan Vs. SKS Inspat and Power Limited to support their case.Consideration of Submissions:The Tribunal considered the submissions of the Appellant's counsel and examined the record. The order clearly indicated the date of hearing on 21st September, 2023, and the date of pronouncement on 25th September, 2023. It was noted that the counsel for the operational creditor i.e. Appellant was present during the pronouncement of the order.Legal Precedents and Interpretation:The Tribunal referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan, which stated that the period for filing an appeal starts from the date of pronouncement in the presence of the Appellant's counsel. The Appellant's reliance on the judgment of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate was considered, but it was deemed irrelevant to the present case due to the clear mention of both the hearing and pronouncement dates in the order.Distinguishing Features and Relevance:The Appellant argued that the cases of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate and V Nagarajan involved ongoing proceedings in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), unlike the present case where the Section 9 Application was dismissed as non-maintainable. However, the Tribunal found no relevance in this argument concerning the question of delay in filing the appeal.Dismissal of Delay Condonation Application:As the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of 15 days after the expiration of the limitation, the Tribunal was unable to condone the delay. The jurisdiction to condone the delay was limited to 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso of the Code. Consequently, the Delay Condonation Application was dismissed, and the memo of appeal was rejected.