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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more