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 was filed beyond the condonable period of 15 days as stipulated by Section 61(2) proviso of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal period commenced from the date of order pronouncement, as the Appellant's counsel was present. The Appellant's reliance on certain precedents was found irrelevant, and the Tribunal rejected the memo of appeal due to the inability to condone the delay.

---

---

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.

---