TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1031/2023 in COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (CH) (INS.) NO. 339/2023 WITH IA No. 1034/2023 & IA No. 1045/2023 in COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (CH) (INS) NO. 340/2023 IA No. 1037/2023 & IA No. 1038/2023 in COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (CH) (INS) NO. 341/2023 WITH IA No. 1041/2023 in COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (CH) (INS) NO. 342/2023 [ Justice M. Venugopal ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Shreesha Merla ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocate For Ms. Harshini Jothiraman, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pranava Charan, Advocate, For R1 ORDER (Virtual Mode) [Per: Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)] 1. IA No. 1022/2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 337/2023, is preferred by the Applicant / Appellant herein, seeking to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd therefore, the Applicant / Appellant were unaware of the Impugned Order and sought for condonation of delay in both re-filing and filing of the Appeal. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the 'Adjudicating Authority' had ordered 'Notices' to all the Parties on three occasions (with two paper publications) and 'Notices' were delivered to Assori Narasimhan, Satyan Kasturi, Acolyte Soft Private Limited, Clean Switch India Private Limited and Enterprise Business Solutions Private Limited. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to the fact that the address of Badri Kasturi and Connect Wind (India) Private Limited, mentioned in the 'Notice' sent by the Counsel and the addresses of the aforenoted two partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was e-filed on 15/10/2022. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant / Appellant that having been set ex-parte before the Adjudicating Authority, they were unaware of the Order till 03/10/2022 when the IRP had sent communication of the same, the Appeal could not be filed within the statutory limit of 30 days, and there was a delay of 15 days from the date of the Impugned Order. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the CIRP was initiated on 13/08/2019, the 'Adjudicating Authority' had directed on 31/03/2021 to publish 'Notice' in the newspapers and the first service vide paper publication was undertaken on 23/04/2021 in 'Business Standard', 'The Hindu' and 'Andhra Prabha'. Additionally, the second service was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants were unaware of the Order having regard to the fact that there were two paper publications made and 'Notices' were 'served' to R2, R3, R4, R5 & R7 as recorded by the 'Adjudicating Authority' in Para 4 of the Impugned Order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 'Esha Bhattacharjee Raghunathpur Nafar Academy' in [(2013) 12 SCC 649] has held as follows: "21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a publ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only on 31/03/2023 with a delay of 115 days. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant / Appellant that the delay is only 85 days is incorrect. Be that as it may, there is no explanation for this delay except for stating that 'there was a communication gap between the Clerk and the Registry on account of the wedding of the clerk coupled with technical difficulty associated with filing and tracking in the e-filing portal'. We do not find this explanation 'a sufficient cause' and this Tribunal is of the view that the reason cited are not 'adequate' to condone the inordinate delay of 115 days in refiling. This Tribunal is of the earnest view that despite service of 'Notice' and two paper publications as noted by the 'Adjudicating....