TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1096
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....( in-person ) ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ( Oral ) This appeal has arisen from the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-IV by which Appeal-(IBC)/50 (MB) 2023, filed by the appellant under Section 42 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the liquidation proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor, namely, Independent TV Limited (ITV) on 17.03.2023. Liquidator made the public announcement for inviting claims on 22.03.2023 which were to be submitted latest by 16.04.2023. It is an admitted fact that the appellant filed its claim with the Liquidator on Form-C in respect of their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve, it is submitted that even if it is presumed for the sake of the argument that the Ld. Tribunal has dismissed the appeal while not condoning the delay yet the said order is totally non-speaking as the issue raised by the appellant in his appeal, including jurisdiction of the Liquidator for considering the belated claim that as to whether it is directory and not mandatory has not been considered. 7. In the light of the aforesaid argument, he has thus submitted that since the impugned order is not clear as to whether it has decided the appeal filed under Section 42 of the Code or refused to condone the delay made in the appeal, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto consideration the decision in the case of Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited vs. Priyadarsini Limited Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi (supra) which was on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal under Section 42 of the Code and not the condonation of delay in filing the claim before the Liquidator. 10. Moreover, though counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that in the entire application of the appellant there is hardly any averment as to how the delay of 102 has been explained yet we have found that the appellant has also raised a legal issue that the consideration of the claim is directory and not mandatory for which the claim of the appellant which is running into more....