TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied with I.A No. 7084 of 2024 which is an application praying for condonation of 51 days delay in filing of the appeal. The prayers contained in I.A No. 7084 of 2024 read as follows: "In view of the above facts and circumstances the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- a. Allow the present Application, condone the delay of 51 days in filing the captioned appeal and/or b. Pass such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble and/or; Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant-Corporate Debtor submitted that the present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned order passed ex-parte by the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor-Respondent No.1. Admitting that there was delay in the filing of the present appeal, it was however contended that it was not a case of simpliciter routine delay but a delay which had been occasioned by the fact that the Section 7 proceedings had been conducted behind their back and that they acquired knowledge of the said proceedings at a much later point of time after the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be excluded while computing the period of delay in terms of established judicial precedent. It was also asserted that the Appellant had failed to substantiate the allegation of improper service of the notice of Section 7 petition. Denying the Appellant's allegations regarding non-service of the Section 7 application, it was contended that the said application was duly served on 04.03.2025 at the registered email address of the Corporate Debtor as reflected in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal. It was strenuously contended that the registered address and email of the Corporate Debtor continue to remain unchanged in the MCA records and the Appellant had failed to produce any material to prove the contrary. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority, by its order dated 24.03.2025, had directed service of the notice through all possible modes and on 15.04.2025, the Adjudicating Authority also recorded that the tracking report indicated successful delivery of the notice on 04.04.2025. Despite this, the Adjudicating Authority had granted the Appellant further opportunity to be heard and on 02.05.2025, on being satisfied that due service of notice had been effe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order only after the Interim Resolution Professional had contacted an ex- auditor of the Corporate Debtor's team. In such peculiar circumstances, where the Appellant remained thoroughly unaware of the Section 7 proceedings even after the pronouncement of the ex-parte order, hence, the limitation period should be counted from the date of acquiring knowledge of the impugned order by them. Any denial of condonation of delay in such circumstances would amount to giving precedence to procedural limitation over substantive justice. 7. Per contra, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the limitation period commences from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order and that any delay beyond the statutory outer limit of 45 days cannot be condoned under Section 61(2) of the IBC. In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2021, wherein it has been held that the date of knowledge of the impugned order is not relevant for purposes of computation of limitation in terms of the statutory provisions of IBC. It was also contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken care that notice was served upon the Appellant by all modes and even perused the proof of service report to satisfy itself. There is no material placed on record by the Appellant to show that the registered address and email id of the Corporate Debtor as available on the MCA portal had undergone any change. Though an assertion was made by the Appellant before us that they were in the process of changing such information, the Appellant had no clear answer to the fact as to why and how the MCA database still reflected the same registered address and email- id even after the passing of the impugned order which the Respondent No. 1 has placed at Annexure R-3 in their reply to the delay condonation application filed by the Appellant. We therefore find the stand of the Appellant on change in their address and email to be rather nebulous and do not feel convinced with the credibility of their argument. 10. Now coming to the statutory construct of the IBC, the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the IBC is 30 days which period is extendable for a further period of 15 days if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within....