AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. The Appellant who initially happened to be the Resolution Professional of M/s. Cethar Limited, the Company under Liquidation, later was appointed as a Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Initially, CA / 17 / 2018, u/s. 43 & 45 of IBC, was filed by Resolution Professional to set aside the avoidance transactions. During the course of the proceedings, an Application was preferred, being MA No. 68 / 2018 which was filed in CA / 17 / 2018 by the Resolution Professional (the Appellant herein), seeking leave to amend the pleadings in CA / 17 / 2018 filed in CP/ 511 / IB / 2017 by making certain insertions therein. 3. The Ld. Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and particularly considering the grounds taken in the Appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as contained under Section 180 of the Companies Act, 2013. 6. It is an admitted case that the said application MA / 68 / 2018 in CA / 17 / 2018 by the Appellant, was allowed on 17.08.2018, but, the amendment thus directed was not carried out by the Appellant. Instead preferred the Application being MA / 46 / 2020 prefer u/s. 45 & 60 of IB Code r/w Rule 11 and Rule 14 of the NCLT Rules to be read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The provisions as contained under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, grants a power to the Tribunal, to exempt the parties from compliance with any of the rules for sufficient cause and to issue directions relating to practice and procedure in the interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6, grant of permission to carry out the amendments by the order of 17.08.2018, would be falling to be within an ambit of the principles of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the Appellant to carry out the said amendments as were prayed for by him in MA / 68 / 2018. In that eventuality, if the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 17 is attracted to be made applicable for the purposes of carrying out the amendment in the pleadings, as it was sought for by the Appellant, the embargo as contained under Order VI Rule 18 as substituted by Act No. 22 of 2002 will come into play, and would be applicable, in the instant case. Order VI Rule 18 reads as under: "18. Failure to amend after Order.- If a party who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we find that the Appellant has attempted to explain the delay in carrying out the amendments in terms of negligence of his Counsel. The Appellant has stated that he instructed his Counsel to carry out the amendment, who inturn is said to have instructed his Clerk to carry the same before the Registry of the Ld. Tribunal who did not carry out the assigned task. He has alleged that both the Counsel and his Clerk have not acted in accordance with the advice and instructions of the Appellant and therefore, he could not carry out the amendments in time. This is not a credible explanation, even if we accept that the Appellant did instruct his Counsel to carry out the Amendment, he should not have waited for an indefinite period as he was expected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to prosecute or to defend the legal proceedings, as per the mandate of the law, the Appellant cannot be permitted to carry the proceedings as per his whims and fancies or the convenience by filing of an application, seeking permission to incorporate the amendment permitted on 17.08.2018 after a lapse of 495 days. The said application is in absolute contradiction to the provisions and mandate of law as contained under Order VI Rule 18 of C.P.C. for the reason being that, the general law of condonation of delay under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will not be attracted to be made applicable under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where the aspect of lim....