TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mounting to Rs.90,70,048/- incurred for protection and preservation of the fixed assets belonging to the Liquidation Estate. 2. Brief facts of the case are given below: The Corporate Debtor M/s. B.S. Limited was admitted into CIRP proceedings, on an application under Section 7 of I & B Code, 2016, moved by State Bank of India, by the Order dated 01.11.2018 of Learned NCLT, Hyderabad, and the Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed on 29.11.2018. Subsequently, the Learned NCLT had ordered Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor on 17.10.2019 and the Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Liquidator on 25.10.2019. IFCI, one of the Secured Financial Creditors, chose not to relinquish its rights over the charged assets. The concerned Secured Assets were handed over to IFCI on 27.09.2021 by the Liquidator for realization. The IFCI subsequently on 14.02.2023, assigned the debts of the Corporate Debtor along with the Secured Assets to the Appellant herein. The Liquidator, meanwhile proceeded to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern (excluding the Secured Assets already handed over) and distributed the proceeds among the Stakeholders. Consequent to it, the Liquidator filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same has not been made available. However, filing of an application for getting the Certified copy of the order, may not be of much relevance for the instant Condone Delay Application, because the Appellant has also filed an application i.e. IA No. 1010 / 2024, seeking exemption from filing the Certified copy of the impugned order. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that, the Appellant is not a party to the proceedings of IA No. 1378/2024, and since he got the knowledge of the Judgment on 19.08.2024, the limitation period should be reckoned from such date only and as he has filed the Appeal on 14.09.2024 i.e. well within the outer limit of 45 days prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code, the delay deserves to be condoned and merely because he has not applied for the Certified copy within the period of limitation may not be taken as to be a ground for rejecting his Condone Delay Application i.e. IA No. 1012 / 2024. 8. He submits that, as the scope is left wide open under Section 61, for any aggrieved party to initiate a proceedings under Section 61 by way of an Appeal and as exemption from production of Certified copy of the order is contemplate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder 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 was submitted that some time needs to be excluded while calculating the limitation period in the present case. Explaining further, it was pointed out that as the Appellate Tribunal was having Winter/Christmas holidays from 23.12.2023 till 01.01.2024, this holiday period of 9 days needs to be excluded. Basis this calculation, the period of 30 days for filing the appeal would have expired on 13.01.2024 which date being a Saturday and a nonworking day followed by Sunday being yet another holiday, the last date for the purpose of filing the appeal would be 15.01.2024. It was further submitted that during this period a close cousin of the Appellant had passed away which necessitated his presence for the related rituals for 13 days. That apart, the other reasons for delay were that the Appellant was suffering from chronic depression and illness and some delay was on account of logisti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e prescribed period of limitation from the date of knowledge i.e. 19.08.2024, since applied only on 08.10.2024, may be fatal enough to deny condonation of delay and that too, in the circumstances of the instant case, where the Appeal has been preferred on 14.09.2024 i.e., it was beyond the upper 45 days of time period prescribed under the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, if computed from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment. 15. Apart from it, if the controversy is taken into consideration with regards to the perspective of knowledge, we had an occasion to deal with a similar situation, where the implication of knowledge was considered by this Tribunal in a Judgment rendered in IA No. 361 / 2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 177 / 2021 in the matters of Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. V. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad, RP for Vaksh Steels Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors., on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant. 16. The aforesaid principle will not be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the bar of limitation cannot be exempted to be applied for the re....