Ariisto Alert Residents Association vs M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1693 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The limitation for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date on which the impugned order is pronounced, and it is not postponed until the appellant comes to know of the order; a non-party's later knowledge of the order does not arrest or restart the period. The Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal is confined by the statutory proviso to a further period of 15 days beyond the expiry of the prescribed limitation; where the delay exceeds that period, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone it and the appeal must be rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ariisto Alert Residents Association Vs. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Present: For Appellant : Mr. R.V. Sipahimalani, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Tishamati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Ms. Litika Makhija, Mr. Rajeev Nair, Mr. Ashhish Parwani, Mr. Chintan Gandhi, Mr. Devesh Juvekar, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Advocates
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.01.2024 Heard Counsel for the Appellant. This is an application
praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was
passed on 17.04.2023 and the appeal has been e-filed on 05.06.2023. There
is a delay of more than 15 days after expiry of limitation.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellants were
Homebuyers who were not impleaded in the application. Although, they had
filed an application for impleadment and were also heard. However, they being
not party, they came to know about the order subsequently. He submits that
from the date when the Appellant came to the knowledge of the order i.e.
29.04.2023, the Appeal is within time.
We are of the view that the order has been pronounced on 17.04.2023,
the limitation shall start running from said date and limitation will not be
arrested till the Appellant came to know on 29.04.2023 of the order as contended by Counsel for the Appellant. Our jurisdiction to condone delay is
limited to 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso and in filing of the appeal, there
being delay of more than 15 days after expiry of limitation, the delay cannot
be condoned.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that order was uploaded on
19.04.2023. The order has been pronounced and the limitation will start
running from the date of order. The application for condonation of delay is
dismissed. Memo of Appeal is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1693 of 2023 2 of 2
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