Central Bank Of India vs Virendra Kumar Jain & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 415 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is filed beyond the period within which delay may be condoned, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond that period, and the appeal must be rejected. Limitation for filing an appeal runs from the date on which the impugned order is pronounced, not from the date on which it is uploaded or communicated, where the record shows the order was pronounced on that date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Central Bank of India ...Appellant Versus Vijendra Kumar Jain & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Raghunath and Ms. Rathina Maravarman, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Paresh B. Lal, Mr. Varun Garg, Mr. Shubham Paliwal, Mr. Prashant Jain and Mr. Nitya Prabhakar, Advocates for R-2. Ms. Udita Singh and Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocates for R-1.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 417 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1415 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Central Bank of India ...Appellant Versus Virendra Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Raghunath and Ms. Rathina Maravaram, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Paresh B. Lal, Mr. Varun Garg, Mr. Shubham Paliwal, Mr. Prashant Jain and Mr. Nitya Prabhakar, Advocates for R-2. Ms. Udita Singh and Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocates for R-1. ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
09.04.2024 : In these two Appeals, the applications have been filed for
condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Order impugned was passed on
08.12.2023 and the Appeal was e-filed on 01.02.2024.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in the application for delay
condonation stated that the order could be uploaded only on 19.12.2023
hence, the Appeal is filed if computation is made from 19.12.2023, the Appeal
is within condonable period of 15 days.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed the Reply and opposed
the ground taken by the Appellant. It is submitted that order was pronounced
on 08.12.2023 and order was uploaded on 11.12.2023 and the RP on
12.12.2023 has sent an email to all the Members of the CoC including the
Appellant.
4. The order indicates that it was delivered on 08.12.2023, cause list has
also been annexed which indicates that it was listed for pronouncement of the
order. The order was pronounced on 08.12.2023. We are of the view that
limitation for filing Appeal shall commence from the date of pronouncement.
It is not shown that the Appellant has filed any application for certified copy
of the order within time and according to the Respondent, order was also
communicated by the RP on 12.12.2023 to all the Members of the CoC and
RP has also filed the Affidavit to that effect.
5. Counsel for the Appellant also submits that although the email was
sent by RP, it was inadvertently not looked into.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 415 & 417 of 2024 2 of 3
6. We are of the view that the delay is beyond 15 days in filing the Appeal
and our jurisdiction is only to condone 15 days delay. We cannot condone the
delay as prayed in the application.
Delay condonation applicaiton is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 415 & 417 of 2024 3 of 3
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