TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>EPFO appeal dismissed after 283 days delay exceeds Section 61(2) maximum 45-day limit under Insolvency Code</h1> <h3>Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Versus Mr. Yadavilli Sai Karunakar, Liquidator of M/s. BS Limited</h3> NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeal filed by EPFO after 283 days delay. Court held that under Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, appeals ... Condonation of delay of 283 days in preferring the instant Appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - Scope of Liquidation estate - EPFO are dues payable to workmen and included in liquidation estate or not - HELD THAT:- A reading of section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 clearly indicates that after the expiry of 30 days in preferring the ‘Appeal’ by a party and after the expiry of 30 days, a leverage is given to the ‘Appellate Tribunal’ to condone delay to further extent of 15 days providing ‘sufficient cause’ as shown on behalf of the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’ in not preferring the ‘Appeal’ in time. The fact of the matter is beyond 30+15 = 45 days, there is no power to enjoin under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ to condone the delay of 283 days, in the instant case preferred by the ‘Petitioner/Appellant/Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund represented by its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kukatpally. Appeal dismissed. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, dismissed IA/371/2024 seeking condonation of a 283-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, EPFO, argued the delay was due to internal procedural requirements and the dues pertained to workmen, thus outside the liquidation estate. However, the Tribunal emphasized that Section 61(2) permits condonation of delay only up to 45 days (30 days plus an additional 15 days) upon showing sufficient cause. Since the delay far exceeded this statutory limit, the Tribunal held it had 'no power to enjoin' condonation beyond 45 days. Consequently, the application was found 'devoid of any merits' and dismissed, and the underlying appeal was rejected. No costs were imposed.
TaxTMI 
