AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy<br>JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND JATINDRANATH SWAIN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Mr. K Poorna Chandra Rao, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. ML Ganesh, Advocate ORDER [Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)] These are the bunch of five company appeals, wherein the Appellant questions the impugned order dated 09.12.2024, which is under challenge in these company appeals as rendered by the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, while passing an order under Section 121 of IBC, had ordered a direction for initiation of Bankruptcy as against personal guarantors who are the Appellants, before this Appellate Tribunal. Brief facts which invariably hap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a delay in filing of the same. Then the Financial Creditor/Respondent No. 1 filed the application once again along with interlocutory applications to condone delay in filing the same. Ld. Adjudicating Authority, after condoning the delay, admitted the respective applications filed under Section 121(1) of initiation of Bankruptcy process against the respective Appellants/Personal Guarantors. 3. The details of the orders, which is the subject matter of challenge in each of the present company appeals are as under: - (i) In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.52 / 2025, the Appellant questions the propriety of the impugned order of 09.12.2024 rendered in IA No. 766/2024 in CP(IB) No. 100/95/HDB/2021. (ii) In Company Appeal (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acted hereunder: - "121. Application for bankruptcy. - (1) An application for bankruptcy of a debtor may be made, by a creditor individually or jointly with other creditors or by a debtor, to the Adjudicating Authority in the following circumstances, namely- (a) where an order has been passed by an Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 100; or (b) where an order has been passed by an Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (2) of Section 115; or (c) where an order has been passed by an Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (3) of Section 118. (2) An application for bankruptcy shall be filed within a period of three months of the date of the order passed by the Adjudicating A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Private Limited [IA.No.1025 Of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 418 of 2022] ii) GLAS Trust Company LLC vs. BYJU Raveendran & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction] iii) Ram Chand and sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. V. Kanhayalal Bhargava [1966 SCC Online SC 215] iv) Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. Vs. Educomp Solutions ltd. [(2022) 2 SCC 401]." Reiterates the same, that inherent powers under Rule 11 can be exercised only where no express provisions have been prescribed and that since the proceedings were drawn much beyond the prescribed period thereafter, the entire proceedings would be vitiated. However, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has held the view that though the word 'shall' has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that objections raised by the Respondents (Appellant herein) are baseless as they were present during key proceedings and had ample opportunity to raise substantive objections on Condonation of Delay, which they had not done. This Tribunal deems it fit to observe at this juncture that the orders passed on the Condone Delay Applications as respectively preferred in each of the company petitions, by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has attained finality, as the same has been informed to be not been questioned by the Appellant before any superior forum. In that eventuality, the principle of waiver would apply since the Appellant has acceded to the aspect of Condonation of Delay, which was allowed by the order of 07.02.2024 by the Ld. Adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a the delay, and that the said objection was ultimately in the order dated 07.02.2024, found to be baseless. 10. There would be another feature, which would be required to be answered by this tribunal, in order to, controvert the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, where he stresses upon, that, the use of the language under Section 121(2) of I & B Code, 2016, where it uses the word "shall", makes it mandatory, that no proceedings under Section 121(1) of I & B Code, 2016, could be drawn, beyond the period of three months as prescribed under statute. We are of the view that when the provision in itself does not create any embargo while prescribing three months' time, as an upper limit for the purposes of initiation of t....