TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 22.03.2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench-I) by which an application i.e. I.A./IBC/61/CHE/2023 filed in CP(IB)/1352/IB/2018 by the Resolution Professional under Section 33(2) and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') has been allowed. 2. This Appeal is filed alongwith an application i.e. I.A. No. 688 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. Since, we cannot hear the appeal until and unless the delay is condoned, therefore, we are taking up the application for condonation of delay for the present and disposing of the same. 3. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the order was passed on 22.03.2023. The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate authority. Section 61(2) prescribes a period of 30 days within which the appeal under Section 61(1) is to be filed before the Appellate Authority, however, Section 61(2) proviso further provides a period of 15 days for the purpose of extension of time in case the Applicant is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority that there was a sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Authority in time with the appeal but in no case the period of 15 days can further be extended. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Mr. Anil Kohli, RP for Dunar Foods Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6187 of 2019 decided on 14.09.2021 has held that:- "11.2 In the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Section 61(2) of the IB Code, it cannot be said that the NCLAT has committed any error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation by observing that it has no jurisdiction and/or power to condone the delay exceeding 15 days." 6. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 was not within her knowledge because she was not a party to the case which has been decided by the impugned order but she got the information on 26.03.2023 from one of the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor who met her at a social function. It is therefore submitted that the limitation may be counted from the date of knowledge i.e. 26.03.2023 and counting limitation from the said date and the appeal having been ....