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>Appeal dismissed for 26-day delay exceeding 45-day limit under Section 61(2) IBC 2016</h1> <h3>Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini Versus Vardhansmart Private Limited</h3> Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini Versus Vardhansmart Private Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing the appeal.2. Applicability of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016.3. Requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.4. Medical grounds for condoning delay.5. Jurisdiction and authority of the Tribunal to condone delays.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:The Petitioner/Appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 12 days according to their calculation, but the Registry noted a delay of 26 days. The delay was in relation to the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2022. The appeal was filed on 19.01.2023, which is beyond the condonable period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay of 26 days is beyond the permissible limit and cannot be condoned.2. Applicability of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016:The Petitioner/Appellant argued that Rule 50(2) mandates the Registry to send a certified copy of the final order free of cost, which was received on 07.12.2022. However, the Tribunal clarified that Rule 50 should be read in conjunction with Rule 2(9) and Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. The free copy received does not substitute for a certified copy required for filing an appeal.3. Requirement of a Certified Copy for Filing an Appeal:The Tribunal reiterated that a certified copy of the order is mandatory for filing an appeal as per Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. The Petitioner/Appellant did not apply for a certified copy within the limitation period, thus failing to meet the requirement. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS ISPAT and Power Limited, which emphasized the necessity of applying for a certified copy to compute the period of limitation.4. Medical Grounds for Condoning Delay:The Petitioner/Appellant submitted a medical certificate citing illness as a reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal held that illness, although genuine, is not a valid ground to prefer an appeal beyond the prescribed period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli, which stated that courts have no jurisdiction to carve out exceptions for condoning delays beyond statutory prescriptions.5. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Tribunal to Condon Delays:The Tribunal emphasized that it has no authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limit of 45 days as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in Chanderpati v. Soni Realtors Private Limited, which reiterated that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the order, and the Tribunal cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed period.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the condone delay application (IA No.83 of 2024) due to the delay being beyond the permissible period, and consequently, the appeal (Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 23 of 2024) was also rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the statutory period of limitation, highlighting that courts do not have the jurisdiction to extend or modify these statutory limits.
TaxTMI 