Anil Kumar Kulshrestha vs Concord Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 977 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The condonation application under the limitation provision governing appeals to the Tribunal is rejected where the appellant, claiming late knowledge of the impugned order, fails to give any particulars of how or when knowledge was acquired, and the record shows the order was uploaded on the official website well before the limitation period expired and was in fact challenged in time by another party against the same order, so that no sufficient reason is made out for an inordinate delay of more than one and a half years.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anil Kumar Kulshrestha & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Concord Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Sunil Singh and Ms. Mukti Singh, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Nipun Gautam and Mr. Samriddh Bindal, Advocates for RP. Mr. U. N. Singh, Advocate for R-4.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
25.01.2022: Heard Shri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the Appellants
and Shri Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the Respondent - Resolution
Professional. I.A. No. 2608 of 2021 has been filed by the Appellants for
condonation of delay. This Appeal has been filed against order dated
23.09.2019 passed in CA No. 113 of 2019 in C.P. No. IB - 1059/ND/2018 by
the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (Court
-IV).
2. This Appeal has been filed on 20.10.2021 by the Appellants. There is
delay of more than 1.5 years in filing this Appeal. The Appellants' case in the
Application is that the Appellants came to know about passing of the
impugned order on 07.03.2021 thereafter they have filed the Appeal.
3. A reply to the Application has been filed by the Resolution Professional,
where it has been stated that the impugned order/judgment of the
Adjudicating Authority was uploaded on the official website before 31.10.2019.
Cont'd..../ 2
Since thereafter an Appeal was filed by the Resolution Professional against the
same judgment before this Tribunal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.
1231 of 2019, which ultimately has been dismissed on merits by this Tribunal
by its judgment and order dated 05.01.2022.
4. The Appellants before us are claiming to be Homebuyers who are
challenging the impugned order with delay. In the application there is no
detail as to how the Appellants claim that they had knowledge of the order
only on 07.03.2021 when the order was uploaded on the website before
31.10.2019, which has been stated in the reply and on the basis of same
uploaded order an Appeal was filed by the Resolution Professional in this
Court challenging the same very order being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.
1231 of 2019.
5. We do not find any sufficient reason to condone such inordinate delay.
Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal is
also dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 977 of 2021
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free