TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of re-filing delay and the following orders were issued: "18.11.2024: I.A. No. 5648 of 2023: - Counsel for the Appellant prays for an adjournment to explain paragraph 5 & 6 of the application by way of additional affidavit. Adjourned to 19.12.2024." 2. Today both parties were heard on the issue of delay in filing the Appeal. 3. Basis the order of 18.11.2024 the Appellant has tried to provide the reasons for delay of 156 days in re-filing the appeal, which is captured as below: "... 2. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dt. 18.11.2024, the counsel for the Appellant is filing the present Additional Affidavit setting out the relevant dates and facts in relation to the delay in re-filing of the Appeal which are as follows: "Date Particulars 01.06.2023 Captioned Appeal was filed. 12.06.2023 Defects were notified and the limitation period of 7 days for refiling this Appeal expired on 19.06.2023. A true copy of the Defect Sheets notified by the Ld. Registry on 12.06.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-1. Upto 1st week of July, 2023 At the time of raising of the defects, counsel for the Appellant wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ek of September, 2023, the newly engaged clerk of the Appellant visited the Ld. Registry to clarify as to how to cure the remaining defects and in particular Defect No. 7 relating to the common challenge to IA No. 3447/2021 and 3583/2022. The Ld. Registry had informed that even though the Impugned Order was a common order allowing IA No. 3447/2021 and 3583/2022, but the Appellant was not permitted to challenge both IAs in the same Appeal. The counsel for the Appellant at the time was of the view that since both IAs were disposed off vide a common order, both IAs could be challenged vide a common Appeal. Hence, the counsel for the Appellant made several visits to the Registry to get clarification of the said issue which took some time. Eventually, counsel for the Appellate was required to remove all references stating that I.A. No. 3447/2021 was being challenged and confine the Appeal to a challenge to 3583/2022. It took some time to cure the said defect. 23.10.2023 to 27.10.2023 Due to Dusshera Vacation, the office of the counsel for the Appellant was not functioning. This caused some further delay in refiling. 13.11.2023 to 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided by the Appellant as explained herein and also various judicial precedents has been gone through. The sequence of events clearly shows a complete lack of respect for the timelines, which are prescribed in the CIR Process. As per above provisions, under the Code we need to see whether sufficient cause has been shown in the facts of the case for the condonation of re-filing delay. 7. From the series of events as enumerated in para 2 it is noted the Appellant has not been vigilant enough in prosecuting the Appeal which was initially e-filed on 01.06.2023 and finally refiled on 22.11.2023 after a huge delay of 156 days. The explanation given by the Appellant is found to be not sufficient to condone the delay. 8. The Respondent has also relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. The adherence to procedural timelines has been emphasised again and again by Hon'ble Apex Court and also this Appellate Tribunal in various judgments. 9. In the "Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, it has been noted that: ".... 127. Given the fact that the time taken in legal proceedings cannot possibly harm a litigant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the newly added proviso to Section 12, if by reason of all the aforesaid factors the grace period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Amending Act of 2019 is exceeded, there again a discretion can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to further extend time keeping the aforesaid parameters in mind. It is only in such exceptional cases that time can be extended, the general rule being that 330 days is the outer limit within which resolution of the stressed assets of the corporate debtor must take place beyond which the corporate debtor is to be driven into liquidation." ( Emphasis Supplied ) 10. Also in the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Amit Gupta, (2021) 7 SCC 209 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: ".... 69. The institutional framework under IBC contemplated the establishment of a single forum to deal with matters of insolvency, which were distributed earlier across multiple fora. In the absence of a court exercising exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to insolvency, the corporate debtor would have to file and/or defend multiple proceedings in different fora. Th....