TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'Appellant' under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code'), against the 'Impugned Order' dated 29.05.2023 in I.A. No. 1589 of 2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 75 of 2021, whereby the Tribunal/'Adjudicating Authority' has dismissed the said Application filed by the 'Appellant'/'Applicant' herein seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the 'Claim under 'Form - C'. 2. Facts in brief are that I.A. (IBC)/1589 (CHE)/2022 in C.P. (IB)/75/CHE/2021 was filed by the 'Applicant'/'Appellant' seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the 'Claim' before the Respondent and for acceptance of the 'Claim'. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of the 'Corporate Debtor' was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a 'Financial Creditor' is neither willful nor wanton. It is argued by the Learned Counsel that the 'Adjudicating Authority' did not take into consideration the legal arguments of the 'Appellant' and was prejudiced by the Respondents' arguments that the 'Appellant' had colluded with the suspended Directors of the 'Corporate Debtor'. It is also contended that the 'Adjudicating Authority' did not address to the merits of the matter and has erroneously relied upon 'Esha Bhattacharjee' (Supra), wherein there was almost 7 years delay, whereas in this case, the delay is of a short duration of only 49 days. There is a distinct between an 'inordinate delay' and 'delay of short duration', which was not addressed to in the 'Impugned Order'. The no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usly relied on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'State Tax Officer (1)' Vs. 'Rainbow Papers Ltd', 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162, as that case relates to State Tax Claims under Gujarat VAT Act and the Sales Tax Dues were to be treated as dues of a Secured Creditor instead of an Unsecured Creditor. It is submitted that all the decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the 'Appellant' are not relevant to the facts of this case and that the 'Adjudicating Authority' has rightly relied upon Esha Bhattacharya (Supra). Assessment: 7. The main issue which arises in this Appeal is whether the 'Adjudicating Authority' was justified in rejecting the Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing the 'Claim' together with the delay in filing the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt' in filing, the 'Claim' under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay. Moreover, keeping in view the aforenoted dates, it is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the 'Claim Form' is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the 'Appellant' approached the 'Adjudicating Authority', vide I.A.1589/22 with a further delay of 100 days, and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking 'legal advise', which the 'Adjudicating Authority' has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a 'sufficient cause for the delay'. 10. Counsel for the 'Appellant' placed reliance on 'Puneet Kaur' (Supra), in support of his case that the NCLAT Principal Bench condoned th....