TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Resolution Professional gets five-day delay condoned for appeal filing due to health issues and document clarity problems</h1> The NCLAT Principal Bench allowed condonation of a five-day delay in filing an appeal by a Resolution Professional. The tribunal found sufficient cause ... Condonation of delay of five days in filing of the Appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The delay in filing of the Appeal is only five days and sufficient explanation was given by the Appellant/ Applicant. The Appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), who is living in Mumbai and in the application, it was pleaded by the RP that due to health ailments, he was unable to seek timely legal advice in filing the Appeal and further it is stated in paragraph (ii) (e) that one of the annexures filed in the Company Petition No.696 of 2020 was dim and an endeavour was taken to file clear and legible copy, for which certain time was taken. There are sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of five days delay in filing of the Appeal. Delay condonation application allowed. Issues:Delay Condonation Application for filing an AppealAnalysis:1. The judgment dealt with an application for condonation of a five-day delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 19.12.2023. The applicant, a Resolution Professional, cited health ailments as the reason for the delay in seeking legal advice promptly.2. The Respondent opposed the delay condonation application, arguing that the applicant failed to provide good and sufficient cause justifying the delay. They relied on various judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for adherence to the parameters set by the courts.3. The Tribunal referred to Section 61(2) proviso of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which allows condonation of delay for only 15 days after the limitation period. It highlighted the case law precedent where the Tribunal exercised discretion based on the facts of each case and emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for delay condonation.4. The Tribunal also discussed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the discretionary power of courts to admit appeals filed after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is established.5. It was noted that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delay if sufficient cause is present, as it serves the interest of justice. The Tribunal highlighted that while a liberal approach is favored, the existence of sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condonation of delay, and technical considerations should not override substantial justice.6. The Tribunal differentiated cases where the delay was inordinate, as seen in the judgments cited by the Respondent, from the present case where the delay was only five days. The Resolution Professional's health issues and the effort to obtain a clear copy of an annexure were considered valid reasons for the delay.7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that sufficient cause was shown for the five-day delay in filing the appeal and allowed the delay condonation application. The appeal was listed for admission on a specified date.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the application of legal principles, case law precedents, and the Tribunal's discretion in deciding on delay condonation applications based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
