NCLAT dismisses appeal application after rejecting condonation plea for 10-day filing delay

NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an application for condonation of 10-day delay in filing appeal. The impugned order was pronounced on 02.03.2022 in appellant's presence, making limitation period commence from that date per SC precedent in V. Nagarajan case. Appellant's claim that limitation should run from 14.03.2022 upload date was rejected. Appellant's subsequent story about certified copy being sent to wrong address and misplaced was deemed unbelievable as it was raised only in rejoinder, not original application. NCLAT found no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and dismissed the application without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed seeking condonation of a 10-day delay in filing the appeal by the Unsuccessful Applicant against the dismissal of their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Respondent argued that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period of 45 days, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited. The Respondent contended that the limitation should be counted from the date of passing of the order, not from the date of knowledge. The Appellant, in their defense, claimed that the delay was due to the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the order, which was misplaced. They argued that this time should be excluded from the calculation of the limitation period.

The Tribunal considered the facts presented by both parties. It was established that the impugned order was passed on 02.03.2022, and the Respondent provided evidence to support this claim. The Appellant admitted in the rejoinder that the order was pronounced in their presence. The Tribunal applied the principle from the case of V. Nagarajan that the limitation period starts running from the date of the order. The Appellant's argument that the delay was due to obtaining the certified copy was deemed unconvincing. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's new story in the rejoinder lacked credibility and was not presented in the initial application, indicating it was fabricated to suit their case.

Considering the evidence and arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to establish a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay should be based on a valid cause, not on equity. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed for lack of merit. Consequently, as the appeal was not duly constituted due to the dismissal of the condonation application, the appeal itself was also dismissed.

In summary, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's arguments for condonation of delay, as the reasons provided were deemed insufficient. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents established by the Supreme Court regarding the calculation of limitation periods and the necessity of showing a valid cause for condonation of delay.

---