Capric Contracts Private Limited vs Gnex Realtech Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.98 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is limited to a further period of 15 days beyond the prescribed limitation period, and no power exists to condone a delay exceeding that outer limit. Where the impugned order was pronounced in the presence of the appellant's counsel, the limitation period runs from the date of that pronouncement, and the appellant cannot claim that it begins only from the date the order was uploaded. The time taken to apply for a certified copy of the impugned order does not extend or suspend the limitation period, so an application for certified copy made after the expiry of the prescribed period does not assist in condoning delay. An inconvenience of the authorised representative, such as travel to a native place preventing handover of documents to counsel, does not without more constitute a good ground for condoning delay in filing the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Capric Contracts Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Gnex Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Manasvi, Mr. Ketan Madan, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arpit Singh Arora, Mr. Saurav Joon, Mr. Shrey Sharma, Mr. Shubham Parashar, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.02.2024: I.A. No. 313 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal has been filed against order dated 11.10.2023 by which order Section 9 application filed by the Appellant has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal has been e-filed on 05.12.2023. There is more than 15 days' delay beyond expiry of limitation period.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay. In Para 3(a) following reasons have been given:
"3. BASIS ON WHICH CONDONATION PRAYED FOR:
a) That the Authorised Representative had gone to his native place, therefore could not meet his counsel and handover the requisite documents so that the present appeal could be prepared and filed in time. As such there is a delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal."
Cont'd.../ -2-
3. We are of the view that our jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to 15 days only.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that order was uploaded on 03.11.2023.
5. The order was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the Appellant, hence, it cannot be said that limitation shall not begin from the date when order was passed. Appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 28.11.2023 i.e. after 30 days of passing of the order.
6. We do not find any good ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. In result, Memo of Appeal is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.98 of 2024
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