TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondonation of 493 days delay in filing the appeal. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 31st August, 2021 in an application filed under Section 60(5) by the Respondent No.1. This Appeal has been filed in this Tribunal on 05.02.2023 challenging the order dated 31.08.2021. 2. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the period of moratorium during which the Appellant was under moratorium i.e. 15.01.2020 to 23.12.2022 has to be excluded giving the benefit of under Section 60(6) of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (hereinafter referred as to 'the Code'). 3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate Tribunal Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days." 8. Against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 31.08.2021 which is sought to be appealed in the present appeal 'any person aggrieved has right to file an appeal within 30 days'. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the Appellant within 30 days and this appeal has been filed with delay of 493 days. The submission which has been placed by the Appellant is on the basis of Section 60 sub-Section 6 of the Code which provides as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation for filing the appeal, this period should be added. 10. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed i.e. 'New Delhi Municipal Council' (supra) was a case where the proceedings were initiated under Section 11(6) of the 'Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' and the benefit under Section 60(6) of the Code was sought to be claimed. Facts of such case has been noticed in para 2 of the judgment which reads thus: "2.Pursuant to an agreement dated 20.02.2015, the appellant placed a purchase order of Rs.16,20,00,000/- with the respondent. The appellant, however, issued a termination notice to the respondent on account of its alleged inaction and conduct which is described as non-responsive. This ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including proceeding in execution of inter alia, the decree or order of an arbitration panel. So, also the provision prohibits any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. Still further, the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor in the occupation of the corporate debtor is forbidden. These provisions do not in any manner appear to stand in the way of the corporate debtor instituting or proceeding with a suit or a proceeding against others. Section 60(6) on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed by the appellant is clearly against the plain meaning of the words which have been used. We have already undertaken the task of understanding the purport of the Code and the context in which section 60(6) has been put in place. This Court cannot possibly sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Law Giver. The period of limitation is provided under the Limitation Act. The law giver has contemplated that when a moratorium has been put in place, the said period must be excluded. We cannot overlook also the employment of words 'any suit or application'. This is apart, no doubt, from the words 'by a corporate debtor'. Interpreting the statute in the manner which the appellant seeks would result in our denying the benefit of extending the pe....