TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company Appeal claim themselves to be the nominal directors of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Private Limited. The integral management of the Corporate Debtor was absolutely vested in Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhuwalka, and the Appellants herein appear to be related parties to one another. It is an admitted case, as borne out from the records as well as from the submissions of the Appellants, that all managerial affairs and vital decisions of the Corporate Debtor were taken by Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhuwalka. The Appellants, admittedly being nominal directors/shareholders, did not exercise effective control over the management or affairs of the Corporate Debtor. 2. The grievance of the Appellants in the instant Company Appeal is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a fine of Rs. 1 Crore under Section 69 of the I&B Code. The reliefs sought in IA No.122/2022 were formulated as follows: "A. Direct the First and Second Respondents to contribute an amount of Rs. 154.55 Crores to the assets of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 66 of the Code; B. Direct the First and Second Respondents to contribute an amount of Rs. 1.49 Crores to the assets of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 44 of the Code; C. Impose fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) on the First and Second Respondents under Section 69 of the Code; D. Pass other orders under Sections 44, 66 and 69 of the Code, as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice and protect the interests of the cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry and investigation report prepared pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2021. This application was disposed of by order dated 22.02.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "9. It is to be seen that this Adjudicating Authority while disposing of the IA No.133 of 2020 vide order dated 10.03.2021, though not fixed any specific time to the RP to revive the said IA or to file a fresh petition after complying with the directions of this Adjudicating Authority, but the Respondent-RP cannot postpone the implementation of the directions issued by this Adjudicating Authority beyond a reasonable period. Since the RP has stated that he is in the process of taking appropriate steps against all necessary parties in terms of the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rakash Chandra Rath vs. Suryakanth Satapathy, wherein it was held that Regulation 35A is directory in nature, as consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Learned Tribunal observed that filing of a separate application for condonation of delay is not mandatory, as no such requirement is expressly provided under law, and delay can be condoned even without a formal application if sufficient cause is disclosed. 9. On the issue of limitation, the Respondent/Applicant submitted that various procedural formalities had to be completed following the order dated 10.03.2021, including securing documents from former directors, which caused delay. It was also contended that Hon'ble Apex Court in suo motu proceedings on account of Covid-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation Act are not mutually exclusive. Even in a case where Section 14 does not strictly apply, the principles of Section 14 can be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by purposively construing 'sufficient cause'. It is well settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that delay can be condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal application, if there are sufficient materials on record disclosing sufficient cause for the delay." 12. Further, the judgment in Shilendra Prasad Dubey(supra) was based on entirely different factual circumstances and statutory provisions and therefore it has no applic....