AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order of 02.07.2024, that has been rendered by the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench in IA No. 1076 / 2024, as it was preferred, in CP(IB)/325/7/HDB/2020. 2. The brief backdrop under, which the Appellant is before us is that, in a proceedings of CP(IB)/325/7/HDB/2020, which was said to have been initiated against M/s. Butta Infrastructure Private Limited, under Section 7 of I & B Code, 2016, the Corporate Debtor was placed under CIRP by an order that was passed on 01.03.2021, but, owing to the fact that, since, there was no plan received or the plans which were received were not acted upon, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by an order passed on IA / 112 / 2022 dated 24.02.2022, directed the Corporate Debtor to be placed under Liquidati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Liquidator for the purposes of rejection of the claim that, the Appellant instead of restricting his claim as filed on 28.09.2023, to be the claim upto the date of the commencement of Liquidation i.e. 24.02.2022, the Appellant had included the claim which were also beyond the period of Liquidation i.e. 26.09.2023, which the Liquidator observed, that was not acceptable under law, as its not prescribed by law to be an admissible claim, for any amount due after the Liquidation Order. 8. Its aggrieved against the said Order, the Appellant had preferred an Application under Section 42 of the Code by filing of an IA No. 1076 / 2024 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 9. In the application thus preferred by the Appellant before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be deemed that, he was conscious of the knowledge of its rejection, by an order of 29.09.2023, seeking of a codal approvals from its own Officers cannot be isolatedly taken as to be a reasonable ground for the purposes of condonation of delay beyond the period, which has been otherwise prescribed under Section 42 of the Code. 14. There is another reason for not to accept the reasons for seeking condonation of delay in filing of an Appeal under Section 42 of the Code, because, any factor leading to determination of delay, which is having any element of being variable in nature and which cannot be deduced or concluded to be considered by its definite terms cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of condoning the delay. Bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judicial proceedings is one of the prime factor, which would be deemed to be regulated by the entities like that of the Appellant and more particularly when they were having the knowledge of the proceedings, it would be presumed that they ought to have been prepared themselves for filing of an Appeal, within the time as prescribed under the statute, which otherwise under law is not a condonable period which could be extended to be condoned beyond the period, prescribed under Section 42 of the Code. 16. Apart from the fact that, there was nothing brought on record by the Appellant by way of an evidence, which was produced by the Appellant for seeking condonation of in-ordinate delay, of 207 days for filing of an Appeal, which is imperm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellate provision prescribing the limitation cannot be taken to run in contravention to the co-ordinate provisions of the Code and hence, the argument extended that the time period given therein is directory in nature cannot be accepted and this could very well be considered in the context of the present case where if this concept of the provisions, being directory in nature is taken into consideration and where the Appellant seeks a condonation of delay merely on the ground that he had to fulfil the codal formalities for filing of an Appeal. 20. There own internal in-house mechanism of seeking permission, cannot make the provisions to be directory to be mis-utilized by the Appellant to the provisions contained under Section 42 of th....