2025 (12) TMI 1555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s: Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Kanika Balhara, Ms. Suraksha Mandhyan, for R-1. Mr. Sumit Sinha, for R-3. JUDGEMENT NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit)-3.3, Bangalore under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code'), challenging the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-III ('Adjudicating Authority'), in I.A. (IBC) No. 175/ND/2023 in CP (IB) No. 411/ND/2020. 2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain, who is the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, is the Respondent No. 1 herein. M/s. Telexcell Information Systems Ltd., which is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....table to administrative exigencies in a governmental tax audit unit, and not attributable to any wilful negligence. 5. The Appellant further relied on the principle that condonation of delay under Section 61(2) of the Code is discretionary where substantial justice outweighs technicalities, as held in N.V. International v. State of Assam [(2020) 13 SCC 244]. The Resolution Professional's mechanical rejection without considering the merits prejudices a statutory creditor's rights under Section 15, especially as the claim was filed within the extended period's proximity. Granting condonation would not disrupt the time-bound CIRP, as the Resolution Plan was reserved for orders on 16.12.2022, post-filing. 6. The Appellant furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are and approved on 30.05.2023, binding all stakeholders under Section 31. 11. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellant, a commercial entity, is deemed to have knowledge via public announcements under Section 15 and Regulation 6, negating pleas of ignorance. No prejudice is shown, as the Plan provides for government dues at 0.5% of admitted claims (total Rs. 10,99,75,523/-, proposed pay-out Rs. 5,49,878/-), adjustable for late claims without altering the fixed quantum. The Impugned Order rightly dismissed the IA, upholding the Code's objectives. 12. Concluding his pleadings, the Respondent No.1 requested this Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal accordingly. 13. The Respondent No.3 also denied all averments made by ....