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>NCLAT dismisses appeal filed 466 days late under Section 42 IB Code despite financial constraints claim</h1> <h3>C. Muthu Versus CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar, Liquidator of M/s. Easun Reyrolle Ltd.</h3> C. Muthu Versus CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar, Liquidator of M/s. Easun Reyrolle Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Delay in filing Company Appeals under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016.2. Condonation of delay in filing the Appeals.3. Financial crunch as a ground for seeking condonation of delay.4. Rejection of Appeals due to delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation.Issue 1: Delay in filing Company Appeals under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016The judgment involves two Company Appeals, both concerning similar questions of facts and law, thus decided together. One Appeal challenges an impugned judgment related to wages due as per orders from the Labour Court, while the other challenges a dismissal by NCLT regarding a claim before the Liquidator. Both Appeals were rejected due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016.Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the AppealsThe Appellant filed an application seeking Condonation of Delay of 466 days for filing the Appeal under Section 42 of the Code. The reasons cited for the delay were financial constraints preventing timely approach to the Tribunal after the decision of the Liquidator. The Adjudicating Authority considered the plea but ultimately rejected it based on guidelines set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, concluding that the reasons for delay were not satisfactory and appeared artificially created.Issue 3: Financial crunch as a ground for seeking condonation of delayThe Appellant claimed financial difficulties as the primary reason for the delay in filing the Appeal. However, the Adjudicating Authority found this ground insufficient, especially considering that the Appellant had already received a significant sum for gratuity and past service dues in 2022, which could have covered the expenses of filing the Appeal. The Authority deemed the financial crunch as an unsatisfactory ground for seeking condonation of the substantial delay.Issue 4: Rejection of Appeals due to delay beyond the prescribed period of limitationThe Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appeals under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016, on the grounds of being time-barred due to the significant delay of 466 days. The rejection was based on the inordinate and unexplained nature of the delay, coupled with the lack of reasonable grounds presented by the Appellant for seeking condonation. The decision was upheld, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's guidelines and the absence of interference required in the Appellate Jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Company Appeals (AT) (CH) (INS) Nos. 230 & 231 / 2024 were dismissed due to the delay in filing beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016, and the unsatisfactory grounds presented for seeking condonation of the substantial delay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
