Appellate Tribunal Dismisses One Appeal as Time-Barred, Allows Another to Proceed After Delays are Condoned. The Appellate Tribunal addressed two Appeals by the Corporate Debtor against orders from the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal against the 11.10.2023 ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appellate Tribunal Dismisses One Appeal as Time-Barred, Allows Another to Proceed After Delays are Condoned.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two Appeals by the Corporate Debtor against orders from the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal against the 11.10.2023 order was dismissed as time-barred, while the delay in the Appeal against the 28.11.2023 order was condoned. The Tribunal emphasized that all issues, including limitation, should be resolved after hearing the Corporate Debtor, rejecting the request to decide the limitation issue preliminarily. The Tribunal allowed the Respondent to raise all pertinent issues in their reply, ensuring comprehensive adjudication on maintainability and jurisdictional concerns.
Issues involved: Appeal against two orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in CP (IB) No.239/CHD/HRY/2023, Delay Condonation Application, Entitlement for benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority regarding limitation, Prima facie order passed on 11.10.2023, Direction to file reply, Issue of maintainability regarding limitation of the petition.
The Appellate Tribunal heard the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 390-391 of 2024 filed by the Corporate Debtor challenging two orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority in a Section 7 application filed by the Union Bank of India on 11.10.2023.
A Delay Condonation Application was filed, with the Appeal challenging both orders dated 11.10.2023 and 28.11.2023. The Appellant contended that the period during the pendency of a Writ Petition and SLP should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Regarding the timeline, the Appeal against the order dated 11.10.2023 was deemed barred by time, while the Appeal against the order dated 28.11.2023 was filed within the condonable period of 15 days. The Tribunal dismissed one Appeal as time-barred and found grounds to condone the delay in the other.
On the merits, the Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to direct the Appellant to file a reply when the application was beyond the time limit. The question of limitation was raised as a jurisdictional fact.
The Adjudicating Authority's order of 28.11.2023 directed the Respondent to file a reply regarding the issue of maintainability due to limitation, which was prima facie decided in an earlier order. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent could raise all issues, including limitation, when filing a reply.
The Tribunal disposed of one Appeal based on the above observations, emphasizing that all issues, including limitation, should be decided after hearing the Corporate Debtor. A request to decide the limitation issue as a preliminary matter was rejected by the Tribunal.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
