TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B) No. 277/MB/2022. By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor admitting M/s Pritdip Impex Pvt Ltd - Corporate Debtor into the rigours of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP' in short). Aggrieved by this impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the suspended director. A delay condonation application has been filed vide I.A. No.1009 of 2024 seeking condonation delay of 41 days in filing the present appeal. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since the Adjudicating Authority had passed ex-parte order in the main company petition CP-IB/277(MB)/2023 on 27.06.2023, the Appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings. The Appellant became aware of the proceedings only when the interim resolution professional informed the Appellant on 06.12.2023 about the impugned order through email. It is the case of the Appellant that an appeal can be filed by an aggrieved person only when he becomes aware of the order and in the present circumstances when the Appellant became aware of the orders only on 06.12.2023, the limitation period should be counted from that date. Further it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of an Appeal had lapsed and that apart the present Appeal having been filed within the period of 15 days as prescribed under the Proviso to Section 61(2) of 1&B Code'; this Appellate Tribunal by taking a lenient, liberal, meaningful and purposeful view and also after being successfully satisfied with the reasons ascribed for the delay in question, allows the Interlocutory Application without costs, in furtherance of substantial cause of justice" 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 refuting the submissions of the Appellant stated that the Appellant was raising a frivolous contention of being unaware of the company petition proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. In the exhibits attached to their Reply Affidavit, it is stated that the Appellant was intimated by the counsel for the Respondent No.1 of the interim orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.03.2023 (Exhibit-A of Reply affidavit). It is also submitted that the Appellant had sent an email on 18.04.2023 to the Advocate of the Respondent No.1 seeking help in the matter (Exhibit-A of Reply affidavit). The Appellant was in fact represented by his advocate before the Adjudicating Authority on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels for both parties and perused the records carefully including the judgements cited. 7. Before we dwell into the facts of the case and the rival submissions made thereto, it will be useful to have a look at the statutory provisions of IBC dealing with appeals as enshrined in Section 61 of the IBC which is as reproduced below: "61. Appeal and Appellate Authority. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate 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. From a plain reading of the above provision, it can be safely inferred that any person aggrieved b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order was passed by NCLT. However, if NCLAT is satisfied, that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within a period of thirty days, it may allow an appeal to be filed within a further period of fifteen days. As such, the normal period of limitation prescribed under the I&B Code is thirty days, with a provision for allowing the filing of an appeal within a further period of fifteen days, if NCLAT is satisfied, that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within thirty days." 11. The same guiding principle has been further expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd & ors in Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020 wherein the need to bear in mind the stringent time-frame of IBC and the need to avoid delays in taking the insolvency proceedings to their logical culmination has also been squarely emphasised. The relevant portions of the judgment are to the effect: "15. The IBC is a complete code in itself and over-rides any inconsistencies that may arise in the application of other laws. Section 61 of the IBC, begins with a non-obstante provision "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Act 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT and prevent limitation from running. Accepting such a construction will upset the timely framework of the IBC. The litigant has to file its appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up to a period of fifteen days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. A sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of a legislation that has an impact on the economic health of a nation." 13. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Safire Technologies Private Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner" in Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2021 wherein after making reference to Kalpraj Dharamshi supra, it was held that an appeal against the order of the NCLT shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was passed by the NCLT. It was also held therein that the Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order clearly rejected the submission that time for filing the appeal shall begin from the date of knowledge. 14. This brings us to the judgement of the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we accept the contention of the Appellant that they were not present before the Adjudicating Authority when the impugned order was passed ex parte, from the material made available on record by the Respondent No. 1, it is clear that the NCLT Registry had sent the impugned order by email. Therefore, it becomes all the more questionable on the part of the Appellant to raise the plea that he was not aware of the impugned order. That a free copy of the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 had been served upon the Appellant on 29.11.2023 by the Registry of the NCLT, Mumbai has been placed on record by the Respondent. This makes it amply clear that the Appellant was well aware that the Adjudicating Authority had passed the impugned order but for reasons better known to themselves they did not show due diligence in filing the appeal in a timely fashion. 18. Another ground taken for the delay is that due to Christmas vacations, the Tribunal was closed and hence the Appellant was restrained from filing the appeal. This explanation lacks merit since the Registry of this Tribunal was operational during this period and the facility of e-filing was available 24 by 7. The Appellate Registry where ....