TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking relief as follows; (i) Condone the delay of forty - eight days in filing of the present Application on behalf of the Applicant. (ii) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in the course of business, the Corporate Debtor had placed numerous orders upon the Operational Creditor for supply of paints and allied products and pursuant to the same, the Operational Creditor had supplied the materials which were ordered by the Corporate Debtor over a period of time and these invoices were payable within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating the books / accounts of the Corporate Debtor from its Chennai Depot and the documents pertaining to the Corporate Debtor were in the custody of officials working in the Chennai branch of the Operational Creditor and without the invoices and the ledger account, the Counsel for the Operational Creditor was not able to issue the Demand Notice. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633 and submitted that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Application to be filed under Section 7 and 9 of IBC, 2016 and further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; for condoning the delay in filing the main Application. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to certain judicial precedents in relation to the condonation of delay; (i) In Kandaswamy and four others vs. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, by its Trustees and 33 others 2001 (4) CTC 722 the Madras high Court took note of the fact that the conduct of the revision petitioner in keeping quiet for over two years only on account of inability to mobilise other petitioner evidences would amount to gross negligence, irresponsible inactive attitude and therefore the petitioner lacks bonafides. Under those circumstances, this Court refused to condone the delay of 797 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. In the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to persuade the Tribunal to believe that explanation rendered is not only true, but it is worthy of exercising judicial discretion. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay are not correct and ex-fade sans bonafide. The Supreme Court in the matter of P.K.R. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held that an essential pre requisite of exercising discretion to condone the delay is that the Court must record its satisfaction that the explanation of delay was either reasonable or satisfactory. 8. Further, the Applicant has sought for a prayer to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the present Application, however, in the rejoinder, the Applicant has state....