Skip to main content

Insolvency: Certified copy of order must be applied for within 30 days of passing impugned order

Cause Title : M/s. Platinum Rent A Car (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Quest Offices Limited, Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.448/2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal At Chennai

Date of Judgment/Order : 12.01.2023

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

Background

Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT with an application for condonation of delay of 25 days. The Appellant had requested for condonation of delay based on the fact that while the order of the NCLT was passed on 08.06.2022, the ‘Certified Copy’ of the above ‘impugned order’ was applied on 21.07.2022 and the ‘Appellant’, was provided with a ‘Certified Copy of the same’, on 26.07.2022

Judgment

The appeal was rejected by the NCLAT on the ground that the ‘procedural formalities’ (including the ‘time limit’), enshrined under the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’, ought to be followed in true ‘letter and spirit’, because of the fact that ‘Speed’ is essence of the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’. As per Section 61, every appeal shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.

The NCLAT observed that the ‘Appellate Tribunal’ has no ‘power’ to condone the ‘Delay’ after 30 + 15 = ‘45 Days’ and in the instant appeal came to be filed on 55th day, which is beyond the ‘permissible limit’, provided under the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’. This ‘Tribunal’, is not to extend its ‘Judicial arm of generosity, considering the fact that the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’, is a self-contained and inbuilt one. Also an invocation of Section 12 of the ‘Limitation Act’, 1963, will be of no assistance to the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ because of the ‘overriding effect’ of the ‘ingredients of Section 238 of the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’.

Opinion

Though the conclusion drawn by the Ld. NCLAT is correct, the explanation is rather confusing. The Supreme Court in V Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.& Ors., has clearly stated that :-
  1. While filling a suit is a right, filling appeal is not.
  2. As per Rule 22(2) of the NCLT rules, an appeal from an order under the IBC will having to be accompanied with a certified copy of the impugned order which can however be waived at the discretion of the court.
  3. The certified copy have to be applied within 30 days of the order passed.
  4. The additional 15 days exemption allowed under Section 61 is entirely at the discretion of the court and applied only in the interest of justice being served.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more