2024 (9) TMI 568 - AT - IBC

NCLAT rejects 80-day delay condonation in IBC Section 61 appeal, citing lack of jurisdiction beyond statutory limits

Brijesh Haridas Nagar Co-op. Hsg Soc. Ltd. Versus VAS Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr.

NCLAT dismissed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC. Appellant sought condonation of 50-day delay, but total ... Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - relevant dates for calculation of limitation period - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the Appellant has made the prayer for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal, meaning thereby, if the limitation period is counted from the date of passing of the order i.e. 11.03.2024 and it is to be counted from the next day i.e. 12.03.2024 then it would come to 80 days till it is filed on 31.05.2024. Thus, besides statutory period of 30 days, the Appellant has consumed another 50 days for filing the appeal though there is a window of only 15 days for considering the appeal by condoning the delay on sufficient cause assigned by the Appellant. In no case, the delay can be condoned beyond the period of 15 days i.e. 30 + 15 = 45 days whereas in this case it is 30+50=80 days, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT], this court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. As regards the case of the Appellant that it had no knowledge of the order having been passed, the appellant itself was an intervenor in that case pending before the Tribunal, therefore, the Appellant had knowledge of the matter which was pending and cannot be allowed to show ignorance. Even otherwise, after the impugned order was passed on 11.03.2024, notice was published on 13.03.2024 in the newspaper and in this regard, the Appellant had the deemed knowledge in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M/s PRS Infrastructure Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, there is hardly any merit in the present application for considering the application for condonation of delay as it is totally barred by time and beyond the period of 45 days. Application dismissed. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.2. Determination of the limitation period for filing the appeal.3. Jurisdiction of the court to condone delay beyond the statutory period.4. Knowledge of the appellant regarding the order passed by the Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an order admitting a company petition for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, alleging that the corporate debtor had mortgaged land owned by a society. The appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a 51-day delay in filing. The key issue revolved around the calculation of the limitation period for filing the appeal, with the appellant arguing that the limitation should be counted from the date of knowledge, while the respondent contended that it should be from the date of the order's pronouncement.The court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to lack of knowledge about the order, whereas the respondent argued that the appellant, being an intervenor in the case, had knowledge of the proceedings. The court referenced relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to determine that the limitation period should be counted from the date of the order's pronouncement, not from the date of knowledge. Additionally, the court highlighted that public announcements were made regarding the CIRP, providing deemed knowledge to the appellant.Furthermore, the court examined the jurisdictional aspect of condoning the delay beyond the statutory period. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the statutory provision allowed for a maximum extension of 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period for filing the appeal. Given that the appellant had exceeded this permissible limit by filing after 80 days, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay. The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the main appeal, finding it not duly constituted due to the time-barred nature of the application.In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the implications of deemed knowledge in legal proceedings. The court's decision underscores the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements in insolvency matters to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the resolution process.